Banerjee v. Board of Trustees of Smith College’s Empirical Analysis
648 F.2d 61 · 1981
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 16 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Roebuck v. Drexel University (1988), Craik v. Minnesota State University Board (1984)
32 federal appellate · 16 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
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)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters · Board of Trustees of Keene State College v. Sweeney · Streeter v. United States
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n order to satisfy the qualifications element of [a prima facie case], plaintiff “need only show that [she] was sufficiently qualified to be among those persons from whom a selection, to some extent discretionary, would be made. That is, [she] need show only that [her] qualifications were at least sufficient to place [her] in the middle group of tenure candidates as to whom both a decision granting tenure and a decision denying tenure could be justified as a reasonable exercise of discretion by the tenure-decision making body.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that plaintiff is a member of a racial or national origin minority; (2) that plaintiff was a candidate for [promotion] and was qualified under [Slippery Rock] standards, practices or customs; (3) that despite his qualification plaintiff was rejected; and (4) that [promotion] positions in the Department of [Mathematics] at [Slippery Rock] were open at the time plaintiff was denied [promotion], in the sense that others were granted [promotion] in the department during a period relatively near to the time plaintiff was denied [promotion].”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“was supplied by an answer to an interrogatory which the record shows was accepted by plaintiff. If, strictly, it was not ‘introduced,’ any deficiency was repaired by Smith’s subsequent testimony in connection with plaintiff’s response.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. White v. Vathally
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.