Coe v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
646 F.2d 444 · 1981
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Drake v. City of Fort Collins (1991), Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co. (1987)
49 federal appellate · 16 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.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 707 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 · Warth v. Seldin · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Tenth Circuit has followed the distinction between the burdens of individual plaintiffs in a Title VII ease and the United States’ burden of proof in a pattern or practice case: In a true “pattern and practice” suit, the government is not required to show individual discrimination with respect to each person for whom it seeks relief when establishing its prima facie case. In seeking to protect the public’s interest, it is sufficient that the government show specific evidence of company discrimination regarding some of the employees that it seeks to represent, and that a broad-based policy of employment discrimination existed.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here the disparate impact doctrine has been used by the courts in individual actions rather than class actions, a plaintiff has been required to show that he personally has been the' victim of discrimination by the general practice which allegedly resulted in a discriminatory impact on a protected group. It is not sufficient for an individual plaintiff to show that the employer followed a discriminatory policy without also showing that plaintiff himself was injured.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] claim of discrimination resulting from the mode of filling a single position does not give rise to a disparate impact.”
3 later decisions 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.