Cuddy v. Carmen’s Empirical Analysis
694 F.2d 853 · 1982
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 52 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2017 · most notably O'CONNOR v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. (1996), Maxfield v. Sinclair International (1985)
35 federal appellate · 52 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 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 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)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Lorillard v. Pons · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Once a prima facie case has been established, the employer has the burden of producing evidence tending to show that the applicant was denied employment for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. If the employer does so, and if his evidence is credible, the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer’s asserted legitimate reason is merely pretextual. (citations omitted). Once this stage is reached, the order and allocation of proof has served its purpose of bringing “the litigants and the court expeditiously to [the] ultimate question” of discrimination. Burdine, supra, 450 U.S. [248] at 253,101 S.Ct. [1089] at 1093 [ 67 L.Ed.2d 207 ]. The plaintiff, who at all times retains the burden of persuasion, must then show by a preponderance of the evidence that age was “a determining factor” in the employer’s decision.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen weighing the evidence the District Court must keep in mind the difficulties plaintiffs face in proving ADEA violations. Employees and applicants for employment have great informational disadvantages: they cannot reach into the minds of decisionmakers, and therefore they usually can gather only circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motives. Hence, the trier of fact should take special care to require of plaintiff only that he present sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable person to draw from it the inference of the fact to be proved. Plaintiff-appellant should only have to show that age was a determining factor, as earlier defined, in the government’s decision to hire someone else by a preponderance of the evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“remove discriminatory barriers against employment of older workers in government jobs at the Federal and local government levels as [the ADEA] has and continues to do in private employment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.