Makky v. Chertoff’s Empirical Analysis
541 F.3d 205 · 2008
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably Burton v. Teleflex Inc. (2013), Connelly v. Lane Construction Corp. (2016)
10 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 50 U.S.C. § 435 (§ 801 of the National Security Act of 1947) · 5 U.S.C. § 2303 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [h]e is a member of a protected class; (2) [h]e was qualified for the position he sought to attain or retain; (3) [h]e suffered an. adverse employment action; and (4) the action occurred under circumstances that could give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework does not apply in a mixed-motive case in the way it does in a pretext case because the issue in a mixed-motive case is not whether discrimination played the dispositive role but merely whether it played “a motivating part” in an employment decision.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, then ... the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment 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.