Blizard v. Fielding’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e note that, with respect to a finding of no probable cause by the Commission, the law today is clear: such finding will not bar a trial de novo on the charges. Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840 , 96 S.Ct. 1949 , 48 L.Ed.2d 416 (1976); Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 , 38, 94 S.Ct. 1011 , 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974); McDonnell Douglas [Corp. v. Green supra, 411 U.S. [792] at 798-799, 93 S.Ct. 1817 [at 1822, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)]; Developments in the Law— Employment Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 84 Harv.L.Rev. 1109 , 1204-1205 (1971). The same reasoning obtains here; both parties are entitled to an inquiry by a court into the charges. While recognizing that findings by the EEOC are entitled to great deference by the district court, we cannot say that a court is obliged to refer to those findings in its opinion. It lies within the discretion of the trial court to comment or not on specific evidence. Mere failure of the court in this instance to make reference to the EEOC findings is not sufficient to sustain an allegation of prejudicial error.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moore v. Devine · Hilton v. Wyman-Gordon Co.

2. “My point is simply that there is much to say, in a case like this, for focusing upon the key issue — whether or not defendant had a proper reason for not promoting plaintiff — rather than floundering about with the difficult but inconclusive question of whether or not a prima facie case was made. Por all practical purposes, this was what was done here. It is true that the court did not preface its findings of non-discrimination with the words, “Assuming plaintiff has made out a prima facie case . . .” but it did carefully examine the substantiality of defendant’s reasons for non-promotion, concluding that they were valid and nondiseriminatory. In so doing, it inferentially recognized that the burden of proof rested with defendant. Since the principal effect of a prima facie case is to shift the burden of proof, and since the district court necessarily recognized the location of the burden in its handling of the evidence, I think its failure to articulate the McDonnell-Douglas formula was harmless. [ 572 F. 2d at 16 ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peper v. Princeton University Board of Trustees

3. “The ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue of discrimination remains with the Plaintiff, who must convince the Court by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she has been the victim of discrimination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cartagena v. Secretary of the Navy