Wright v. National Archives & Records Service’s Empirical Analysis
609 F.2d 702 · 1979
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 11 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Lovelace v. Sherwin-Williams Co. (1982), Page v. Bolger (1981)
50 federal appellate · 11 district · 6 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
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'involves employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but that in fact fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“rightly treated simply as alternative theories upon which a right to relief under Title VII may be established in a given case.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[i]n technical effect the result would be to find a disparate impact prima facie case established in any situation where a single white male employee has received an employment benefit — hiring, promotion, etc. — not received by a comparably situated member of a protected group. This would cast upon the employer defendant the difficult business necessity defense rather than requiring of defendant the mere ‘articulation of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason’ that could only be overcome by claimant’s counterproof of pretext. Disparate impact theory would thereby effectively have swallowed disparate treatment theory as available modes of establishing a Title VII violation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.