Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
632 F.2d 1107 · 1980
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (1983), Criswell v. Western Airlines, Inc. (1983)
21 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 Loeb v. Textron, Inc. · United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMann · Smith v. University of North Carolina · Price v. Maryland Casualty Co. · Stump v. Sparkman
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It shall not be unlawful for an employer ... (2) to observe the terms of a bona fide seniority system or any bona fide employee benefit plan such as a retirement pension, or insurance plan, which is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this chapter, except that no such employee benefit plan shall excuse the failure to hire any individual.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“no such ... employee benefit plan shall require or permit the involuntary retirement of any individual (covered by the Act) because of the age of such individual.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The interpretive bulletin, on which the defendant railroad companies claim reliance, refers to the terms of the pension plan itself. The bulletin instructs that involuntary retirement irrespective of age is permissible, if pursuant to the terms of a pension plan. Assuming, as we have here held, that the railroad companies’ plan contain no such authorization, it is circular reasoning to argue that the railroad companies could involuntarily retire protected employees on the basis of the Secretary’s interpretive bulletin directing them to examine their plans.”
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.