654 So. 2d 843 - Plummer v. Marriott Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 743 So. 2d 181 - King v. Phelps Dunbar, LLP (1999), Nichols v. Grocer (1998)
5 federal appellate · 21 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. § 2000C
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Landgraf v. USI Film Products
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. It shall be unlawful discrimination in employment for an employer to engage in any of the following practices: (1) Intentionally fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to intentionally discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, or his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of the individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (2) Intentionally limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of the individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Because the Louisiana statute is similar in scope to the federal anti-discrimination prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Louisiana courts have routinely looked to the federal jurisprudence for guidance....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]t shall be unlawful discrimination in employment for an employer to ... intentionally discriminate against or in favor of an individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of ... sex....”
2 later decisions 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.