Holder v. Old Ben Coal Co.’s Empirical Analysis
618 F.2d 1198 · 1980
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 2001 · most notably Mason v. Continental Illinois National Bank (1983), Herman v. National Broadcasting Co. (1984)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters · Robert FLOWERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CROUCH-WALKER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] desire to hire the more experienced or better qualified applicant is a non-discriminatory, legitimate, and common reason on which to base a hiring decision.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * The plaintiff ‘carries the initial burden of showing actions taken by the employer from which one can infer, if such actions remain unexplained, that it is more likely than not that such actions were “based on a discriminatory criterion illegal under the Act.” ’ [Citations omitted.] In applying this language the Supreme Court has said that a Title VII plaintiff must show that rejection for a job did not result from ‘the two most common legitimate reasons on which an employer might rely to reject a job applicant: an absolute or relative lack of qualifications or the absence of a vacancy in the job sought.’ [Citations omitted.] * * A Title VII plaintiff must show that the employer was seeking applicants of qualifications comparable to plaintiff’s. * * * Plaintiff has shown nothing more than she applied for a job labelled unskilled and she was rejected. This does not constitute a prima facie showing. * * * ” 618 F.2d at 1201-1202 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * That argument may be fostered by commendable zeal to eliminate sex discrimination whenever suspicion arises, but in this case it totally lacks support in the evidence.” 618 F.2d at 1201 .”
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.