Davis v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 federal appellate · 39 district · 7 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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the minimum objective qualifications necessary for one to be eligible for promotion must be considered in the statistical data presented initially by a plaintiff.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holder v. Old Ben Coal Co. · Trout v. Lehman

2. “Appellant’s statistical Prima facie case is bolstered by the subjective and ad hoc nature of Appellee’s promotion decisions. No objective criteria were established to guide the promotion decisions of supervisors, branch chiefs and ad hoc promotion panels, who were predominantly male. This Court agrees with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Rogers v. International Paper Co., ... which stated: Greater possibilities for abuse ... are inherent in subjective definitions of employment selection and promotion criteria. Yet they are not to be condemned as unlawful per se, for in all fairness to applicants and employers alike, decisions about hiring and promotion in supervisory and managerial jobs cannot realistically be made using objective standards alone. Thus, it is especially important for courts to be sensitive to possible bias in the hiring and promotion process arising from such subjective definition of employment criteria. Appellee’s promotion procedures are highly suspect and must be closely scrutinized because of their capacity for masking unlawful bias. The “lack of meaningful standards to guide the pro motion decision, whereby there is some assurance of objectivity ... encourage(s) and foster(s) discrimination.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 497 F. Supp. 1154 - Sklenar v. CENTRAL BD. OF ED. OF SCH. DIST., ETC. · 349 F. Supp. 2d 1 - McReynolds v. Sodexho Marriott Services, Inc.

3. “[s]tatistical proof may alone be used, without presentation of specific instances of discrimination, to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Renee Lowery Lisa S. Peterson, and Shelby McKnight Gregory Fleming Sonya Hairston Dynelle Johnson Nadra Smith Ponnette Smith Sheila Smith Patricia Spencer Edward Stokes v. Circuit City Stores, Incorporated, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America Washington Legal Foundation Equal Employment Advisory Council National Retail Federation Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Naacp Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Amici Curiae. Shelby McKnight Gregory Fleming Renee Lowery Nadra Smith Ponnette Smith Sheila Smith Patricia Spencer Edward Stokes Lisa S. Peterson, and Sonya Hairston Dynelle Johnson v. Circuit City Stores, Incorporated, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America Washington Legal Foundation Equal Employment Advisory Council National Retail Federation Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Naacp Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Amici Curiae. Shelby McKnight Renee Lowery Lisa S. Peterson, and Gregory Fleming Sonya Hairston Dynelle Johnson Nadra Smith Ponnette Smith Sheila Smith Patricia Spencer Edward Stokes v. Circuit City Stores, Incorporated, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Naacp Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Amici Curiae. Renee Lowery, and Shelby McKnight Gregory Fleming Sonya Hairston Dynelle Johnson Nadra Smith Ponnette Smith Sheila Smith Patricia Spencer Edward Stokes Lisa S. Peterson v. Circuit City Stores, Incorporated · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ball Corp.