Hung Ping Wang v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
694 F.2d 1146 · 1982
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co. (1987), Moore v. Hughes Helicopters Inc. (1983)
23 federal appellate · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 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 · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Dothard v. Rawlinson · Connecticut v. Teal
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“had produced a discriminatory impact on a protected class. There was no evidence that the employer ever applied the subjective criteria to anyone but the plaintiff. Her claim therefore was purely one for discriminatory treatment. 7 Neither Peters nor Wang held that the use of subjective criteria alone establishes a prima facie case of disparate impact. The plaintiff must still demonstrate a significant adverse impact upon the protected class. Accordingly, in Peters we recognized the rule that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the members of the selection panel could manipulate the criteria and the weighting system in order to eliminate certain candidates, then the selection process could be used for purposes of unlawful discrimination ... [the] contention that the criteria and the weights are chosen prior to identifying the applicants is unavailing if the applicant pool is small enough or if the department supervisor had reason to believe particular individuals would apply-”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A disparate impact claim challenges a practice neutral on its face, but having a more adverse impact on minorities than others.... The plaintiff has the initial burden of proving that the selection system results in a “significantly discriminatory impact.” (Citations omitted). The burden then shifts to the employer to prove that no disparity exists, ... or that the practice is necessary to the efficient operation of the business. At 968-69.”
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.