Ramirez v. Sloss’s Empirical Analysis
615 F.2d 163 · 1980
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Lee v. Russell County Board of Education (1982), Bell v. Birmingham Linen Service (1983)
63 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Washington v. Davis
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the rare situation in which the evidence establishes that an employer openly discriminates against an individual it is not necessary to apply the mechanical formula of McDonnell Douglas to establish an inference of intentional discrimination; the showing has already been made directly.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ms and Conditions of Employment Martin claims that while employed by Kroger, she was treated adversely as com pared to white or male employees in a number of respects. “To establish a pri-ma facie case of discrimination ..., a plaintiff may prove her claim either through direct evidence, statistical proof, or the test established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““(i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant’s qualifications.””
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.