Fitzgerald v. Sirloin Stockade, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
624 F.2d 945 · 1980
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 15 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2015 · most notably Sharon Pollard v. E I Pont Nemours & Company (2001), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Prudential Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (1985)
58 federal appellate · 15 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. · General Electric Co. v. Gilbert · Houchins v. KQED, Inc.
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.
“the trial court has a broad discretion in fashioning relief to achieve the broad purpose of eliminating the efforts of discriminatory practices and restoring the plaintiff to the position that she would have likely enjoyed had it not been for the discrimination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Constitution does not constitute us [the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States] as 'Platonic Guardians' nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, 'wisdom,' or 'common sense.' " In like manner the court should be ever cautious not to play the role of a superlegislature. 1 The jury found in favor of Prudential with respect to the six other charging parties. The EEOC has not challenged these determinations on appeal 2 A plaintiff need not "request reinstatement as a prerequisite to obtaining front pay where the evidence reveals an atmosphere of hostility.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This is not a case in which a discriminatory activity is specifically sanctioned under the Equal Pay Act exceptions and liability is, nonetheless, sought under Title VII. Here a finding of discrimination under Title VII does not conflict with the provisions of the Equal Pay Act. It was found that the plaintiff was discriminated against solely because of her sex in a manner which is not within the scope of the Equal Pay Act. This finding does not offend the Bennett Amendment and Equal Pay Act standards and should not be controlling.”
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.