Adams v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis
567 F.2d 1283 · 1978
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Novotny v. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (1978), Jefferies v. Harris County Community Action Ass'n (1980)
43 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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Chandler v. Roudebush
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While we recognize that ‘ “ [statistical analyses have served and will continue to serve an important role” in cases in which the existence of discrimination is a disputed issue,’ Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 339 , 97 S.Ct. 1843, 1856 , 52 L.Ed.2d 396, 417 (1977), we do not find error in the District Court’s determination that the statistical disparities revealed here, considered in the context of ‘all of the surrounding facts and circumstances,’ 431 U.S. at 340, 97 S.Ct. at 1857, 52 L.Ed.2d at 418, do not constitute a prima facie showing of discrimination. The numbers concerning the Historical Research Center are drawn from a pool too small to produce highly valuable evidence. See Teamsters v. United States, supra, 431 U.S. at 339, 97 S.Ct. at 1856 n. 20, 52 L.Ed.2d at 418 n. 20. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has noted, ‘such general determinations, while helpful, may not be in and of themselves controlling as to an individualized hiring decision, particularly in the presence of an otherwise justifiable reason for refusing to rehire.’ McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, supra, 411 U.S. at 805 n. 19, 93 S.Ct. at 1826 , 36 L.Ed.2d at 697 n. 19. The evidence as to the comparisons among the candidates for the promotion leads us to hold that the District Court Judge was warranted in concluding that discrimination was not a reason for refusing to elevate plaintiff to the archivist position. The statistical disparities are not sufficient to overcome this conclusi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(A)n individual plaintiff may be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees, despite his failure to prove his own claim, when the class he represents is successful.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“because the person selected was a woman, we cannot accept sex discrimination as a plausible explanation for (the promotion) decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.