Triplett v. Electronic Data Systems (EDS)’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

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

1. “It is clear, however, that this guide was never intended or understood to be part of the employment contract. The guide itself expressly provides it is ‘intended for use by EDS managers only.’ ... EDS obviously attempted to avoid the ‘situation instinct with an obligation,’ recognized in Toussaint as the basis for an implied duty not to discharge except for cause.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Transou v. Electronic Data Systems · 770 F. Supp. 359 - Rosinski v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

2. “... Plaintiff does not point to any provision in the handbook (You, Your Family and Your Company) which assures that discharge will be for just cause only. In fact, the provisions relied on have nothing to do with termination. Rather, plaintiff relies on assurances that good performance will be rewarded with increased earning and advancement. These assurances are said to negatively imply that only poor performance will lead to discharge. Plaintiff’s argument is not logical and not persuasive. An assurance that good performance will be rewarded simply does not compel the conclusion that mediocre performance will suffice to maintain the status quo and only poor performance will result in discipline ... Plaintiff’s contrary expectation is not reasonable, is merely subjective and is insufficient to support the finding of a contractual obligation. (Citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 770 F. Supp. 359 - Rosinski v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

3. “[w]hile plaintiff may rightly complain that she was treated discourteously by defendant Kremer, no facts have been presented to support a finding that the tension was related to racial differences. The statutes under which plaintiff seeks redress for race discrimination are designed for that limited purpose; they do not provide a shield against all harsh treatment in the work place.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clemons v. Ford Motor Co.