Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 614 F.3d 556 - Aliotta v. Bair

Aliotta v. Bair’s Empirical Analysis

614 F.3d 556 · 2010

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
1
states following
November 2022
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 51 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 633A (§ 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)

Relies on Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens · Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins · Smith v. City of Jackson

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

  1. “In the initial, or ‘liability,’ phase of a pattern or practice lawsuit, the analysis focuses on whether the unlawful discrimination has been the employer’s regular or ‘systemwide’ pattern or practice. In order to make out a prima facie case, the plaintiffs must ... establish by a preponderance of the evidence that discrimination was the company’s standard operating procedure — the regular rather than the unusual practice. In this phase, the plaintiffs need not show each individual member of the class was a victim of the employer’s discriminatory policy, since proof of the pattern or practice supports an inference that any particular employment decision, during the period in which the discriminatory policy was in force, was made in pursuit of that policy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “demonstrate she suffered an adverse employment action by showing the resignation or retirement was, in fact, not voluntary.”) (emphasis added)). 7 . That Plaintiff was kept on paid administrative leave as a result of its issuance is insuffi-ciént for the reasons discussed above. 8 . Plaintiff argues that the Court should look to the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “permit the inference that, absent other explanation, the disparity more likely than not resulted from illegal discrimination.” See Aliotta v. Bair, 614 F.3d 556, 563 (D.C.Cir.2010) (citing Segar v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1249, 1274 (D.C.Cir.1984)). Here, the”
    1 later decision 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.