13 Fair empl.prac.cas. 904, 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,321 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Airguide Corporation, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Airguide Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
539 F.2d 1038 · 1976
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2001 · most notably Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Shell Oil Co. (1984), Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (1982)
18 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Hannah v. Larche · American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service · Perini v. Downey · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kimberly-clark Corp. · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., Chestnut Run & Affiliated Facilities
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“unwilling to hold that in the present situation-where there has been virtual compliance with all the statutory procedural steps, and where there has been no clear showing of substantial prejudice to Airguide-there has been a showing of a denial of due process sufficient to bar EEOC from bringing suit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If within thirty days after a charge is filed with the Commission or within thirty days after expiration of any period of reference under subsection (c) or (d) of this section, the Commission has been unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission, the Commission may bring a civil action against any respondent .... The person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the Commission . . . If a charge filed with the Commission pursuant to subsection (b) of this section is dismissed by the Commission, or if within one hundred and eighty days from the filing of such charge or the expiration of any period of reference under subsection (c) or (d) of this section, whichever is later, the Commission has not filed a civil action under this section ... or the Commission has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the person aggrieved is a party, the Commission . . . shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge (A) by the person claiming to be aggrieved or (B) if such charge was filed by a member of the Commission, by any person whom the charge alleges was aggrieved by the alleged unlawful employment practice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... such a position must be balanced against the observation .. . that “[w]hen an agency neglects to follow a procedural rule but its failure inflicts no significant injury on the party entitled to observance of the rule, the error does not prevent further administrative or judicial action.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.