Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
635 F.2d 1007 · 1980
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2011 · most notably Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris (1983), Cole v. Ruidoso Municipal Schools (1994)
52 federal appellate · 8 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. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The four McDonnell Douglas requirements ... do not represent the exclusive method of showing disparate treatment under Title VII.... [A] court need not adhere stubbornly to that case's specific formulae when common sense dictates the same result on the basis of alternative formulae.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Air Line Pilots Association, International v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., Harold H. Thurston and Nicholas Vasilaros, Defendants- Intervenors Harold H. Thurston, Christopher J. Clark and C. A. Parkhill, Plaintiffs- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. And Air Line Pilots Association, International · Hagelthorn v. Kennecott Corp.“[t]he importance of McDonnell Douglas lies, not in its specification of the discrete elements of proof there required, but in its recognition of the general principle that any Title VII plaintiff must carry the initial burden of offering evidence adequate to create an inference that an employment decision was based on a discriminatory criterion illegal under the Act,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Each of the three named appellants clearly and repeatedly made his interest in a job as foreman known to at least one of the superintendents. This was sufficient to put the superintendents on notice that these men wanted a foreman’s job. Under Title VII “a nonapplicant can be a victim of unlawful discrimination ... when an application would have been a useless act serving only to confirm a discriminatee’s knowledge that the job he wanted was unavailable to him.” Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, supra, 431 U.S. at 367 [ 97 S.Ct. at 1870 ], Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 [ 97 S.Ct. 2720 , 53 L.Ed.2d 786 ] (1977). Faced with an admittedly entrenched discriminatory system that had historically shown no inclination to make blacks foremen, appellants were not required to keep beating their heads against the wall by reapplying.”
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.