Arnold v. Postmaster General’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 2013
5 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 631 (§ 12 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 633A (§ 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 39 U.S.C. § 404
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“rule violated the Act under both disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. It found that the postal inspectors' age and seniority were correlated; that the Postal Service knew of that correlation; and that there was no justifiable business necessity for such a policy. The district court also found that the evidence clearly demonstrated that the real business need of the Postal Service, in order to alleviate the shortage of experienced postal inspectors in major metropolitan areas, was not for senior Level 23 inspectors but rather was for”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[p]laintiffs' statistics establish that the adverse effects of the senior-first rule, which involuntarily transfers the oldest postal inspectors to cities with high costs of living, or causes them to resign or volunteer for lateral transfer, falls more harshly on postal inspectors 40 years of age and older than on postal inspectors under 40 years of age.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a violation of the ADEA may be proved by showing that an employment practice, such as the senior-first rule, which is involved in this case, has a disparate impact on a protected class, namely postal inspectors 40 years of age and above.”
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.