Ray v. Tandem Computers, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
63 F.3d 429 · 1995
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n (1996), Penry v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka (1998)
23 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 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 · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · United States v. Security Industrial Bank · Halas v. Department of Energy · St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Camp
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] single comment, made several years prior to the challenged conduct, is a stray remark too remote in time to support an inference of sex discrimination in later employment actions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“bald assertions of age discrimination are inadequate to permit a finding that proscribed discrimination motivated [defendant's] actions against [plaintiff]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the plaintiff engaged in an activity protected by Title VII, (2) the plaintiff was thereafter subjected to some adverse employment action, and (3) there was a causal connection between the plaintiffs participation in the protected activity and the defendant’s decision to take the adverse employment action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.