Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 710 F.2d 1102 - Martinez v. El Paso County

Martinez v. El Paso County’s Empirical Analysis

710 F.2d 1102 · 1983

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
October 2006
most recently cited

5 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 2006

5 federal appellate ·

80198319902000decided

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 (§ 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 · United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Jake ROWE Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “burden then shifts to the employer to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for [the adverse employment action], This causes the presumption of discrimination to dissipate. The plaintiff then bears the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer intentionally discriminated against [her] because of [her] protected status. To carry this burden, the plaintiff must produce substantial evidence indicating that the proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason is a pretext for discrimination. The plaintiff must rebut each nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the employer. A plaintiff may establish pretext either through evidence of disparate treatment or by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is false or “unworthy of credence.” An explanation is false or unworthy of credence if it is not the real reason for the adverse employment action.”
    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.