Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 645 F.2d 1251 - Chrisner v. Complete Auto Transit, Inc.

Chrisner v. Complete Auto Transit, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

645 F.2d 1251 · 1981

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 2022
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2022 · most notably Ricci v. DeStefano (2009), Wrenn v. Gould (1987)

43 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

46019811990200020102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody

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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Business necessity means more than a business purpose. Business necessity requires that a practice “must substantially promote the proficient operation of the business.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Application of the business necessity defense entails considerations which are a function of the job's demands. In this regard, positions can be evaluated according to their location on the type of spectrum described in Spurlock.... Since a flight officer is ultimately responsible for the safety of passengers as well as costly aircraft, the public interest is paramount, justifying high employment standards. An industry with the primary function of managing the safety of large numbers of passengers must be allowed more latitude in structuring the requirements which could effect [sic] the performance of a primary business objective.... 27 "... The important public interest in safety ... is sufficiently weighty to convince us that [the instant job requirement] ... is manifestly related to the safe and efficient operation of its business....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “When a job requires a small amount of skill and training and the consequences of hiring an unqualified applicant are insignificant, the courts should examine closely any pre-employment standard or criteria which discriminate against minorities. In such a case, the employer should have a heavy burden to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that his employment criteria are job-related. On the other hand, when the job clearly requires a high degree of skill and the economic and human risks involved in hiring an unqualified applicant are great, the employer bears a corresponding lighter burden to show that his employment criteria are job-related. Cf. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1607.-5(c)(2)(iii).... The courts, therefore, should proceed with great caution before requiring an employer to lower his pre-employment standards for such a job.”
    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.