Dickerson v. Metropolitan Dade County’s Empirical Analysis
659 F.2d 574 · 1981
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably 41 Fair Emplpraccas 358 27 Wage & Hour Cas, Waggoner v. City of Garland (1993)
25 federal appellate · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 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 · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. · Salem v. United States Lines Company
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even if DERM were wrong in its evaluation of the seriousness of the injury and the justiciability of the absences, it did not violate Title VII if it acted on the reasonable belief about the absences.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs, to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.”
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.