Serrano v. Cintas Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
699 F.3d 884 · 2012
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 707 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
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.
“This argument is based on a mistaken premise. The Teamsters framework is not an inherently easier standard of proof; it is simply a different standard of proof. Indeed, under Teamsters , the plaintiffs initial burden to make out a prima facie ease is heightened—[U]nder Teamsters the plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a discriminatory procedure or policy. This is no simple task, as the plaintiff must prove that discrimination was the company’s standard operating procedure — the regular rather than the unusual practice.... Thus, the EEOC must always weigh the risks — as well as the benefits — of proceeding under the Teamsters framework, for doing so involves a greater chance of losing at the prima facie stage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"that unlawful discrimination has been a regular procedure or policy followed by an employer or a group of employers.” Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 360 , 97 S.Ct. 1843 . Upon that showing, it is assumed "that any particular employment decision, during the period in which the discriminatory policy was in force, was made in pursuit of that policy” and, therefore, “[t]he [plaintiff] need only show that an alleged individual discri-minatee unsuccessfully applied for a job.” Id. at 362 , 97 S.Ct. 1843 . "The burden then shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the individual applicant was denied an employment opportunity for lawful reasons.” Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The first issue that we must address, and the one given considerable attention by Cintas on appeal, is whether the EEOC may employ the [International Brotherhood of] Teamster [v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 , 97 S.Ct. 1843 , 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977) ] framework only when it acts pursuant to § 707. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the EEOC’s enforcement authority is not so limited. ... [W]e hold that the district court erred in concluding that the EEOC may not pursue a claim under the Teamsters pattern-or-practice framework, pursuant to its authority vested in § 706 of Title VII.”
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.