Goldman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 1014 · 1979
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 48 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Mack v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (1989), Berry v. Board of Supervisors of L.S.U. (1983)
60 federal appellate · 48 district · 5 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 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans · Texas v. Louisiana · Ratchford v. Gay Lib · Macklin v. Spector Freight Systems Inc. · Mary P. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Air Line Pilots Association, Non-Aligned Party. Mary P. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Air Line Pilots Association, Non-Aligned Party
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A continuing violation is not stated if all that appears from the complaint is that the plaintiff continues to suffer from the ongoing effects of some past act of discrimination.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is not said when these refusals occurred, nor are any facts stated indicating that the refusals to retransfer (as distinct from the original transfers) were motivated by a discriminatory animus. There is, for example, no indication that when the refusals were made a position was open in the large appliance department, or would then have been opened but for discrimination against appellant____ To hold, on such non-specific allegations that the complaint states more than the discrete violations specifically pleaded, would be, in effect, to negate the statutory time requirements for bringing charges. Under the construction urged by [plaintiff], every demotion could be turned into a continuing violation merely by pleading that plaintiff had continued to protest unsuccessfully.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A continuing violation is not stated if all that appears from the complaint is that the plaintiff continues to suffer from the ongoing effects of some past act of discrimination ... “[cjomplaints based on civil rights statutes must do more than state simple conclusions; they must at least outline the facts constituting the alleged violation.” ... If plaintiff meant to claim that the later refusals formed part of a continuous chain of misconduct, it was incumbent upon him to allege facts giving some indication that the later refusals were themselves separate civil rights violations.”
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.