Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
542 federal appellate · 435 district · 129 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3,127 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably 133 S. Ct. 2517 - University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar (2013), Torgerson v. City of Rochester (2011)
542 federal appellate · 435 district · 129 state decisions — followed in 25 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedGross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 2504 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 722 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 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)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.
Cited together with McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation
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 3,127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged adverse employment action.”
28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“age was the 'but-for' cause of the employer's adverse decision.”
16 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.