Williams v. Boorstin’s Empirical Analysis
663 F.2d 109 · 1980
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 36 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp. (1985), Mitchell v. Baldrige (1985)
35 federal appellate · 36 district · 2 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. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment ... 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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It would be incongruous--and certainly not required by law--to give any employee, even one engaged in exemplary efforts to vindicate the law of the land, a stranglehold on a job irrespective of that employee's material, work-related flaws.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the plaintiff has made a showing of 'pretext,' the defendant ... must then demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff would have [been subject to the defendant's actions] anyway absent retaliation for the plaintiff's participation in protected conduct.”
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.