Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ford Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis
645 F.2d 183 · 1981
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably Ford Motor Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1982), Rasimas v. Michigan Department of Mental Health (1983)
26 federal appellate · 6 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.
Appellate journey
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[A]wards of back pay under Title VII should not be affected by a system of compensation which is designed to serve a wholly independent social policy.' To decide otherwise would undercut to some degree the corrective force of a Title VII back pay award.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, . . . hiring of employees, with or without back pay, . . . or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. . . . Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person or persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]o decline to deduct state [pension plan benefits] in computing back pay is not to make the employees more than whole .... Since no consideration has been given or should be given to collateral losses in framing an order to reimburse employees for their lost earnings, manifestly no consideration need be given to collateral benefits which employees may have received.”
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.