Davis v. Cintas Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 2 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[First,] a plaintiff establishes a prima facie violation by showing that an employer uses “a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(l)(A)(i). [Second, the] employer may defend against liability by demonstrating that the practice is “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” Ibid. [Third,] ... if the employer meets that burden, ... [the] plaintiff may still succeed by showing that the employer refuses to adopt an available alternative employment practice that has less disparate impact and serves the employer’s legitimate needs. §§ 2000e-2(k)(l)(A)(ii) and (C).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. City of Memphis · Davis v. Dist. of Columbia

2. “Dukes proposed a “Trial by Formula” process. Under this system, the district court would appoint a master to determine whether and how much backpay was due to a sample set of class members. The court would then multiply the total number of class members by the percentage of claims the special master determined were valid. Next, it would multiply that number by the average backpay award for sample claimants with a valid claim to determine the class’s recovery. The Court did not make clear whether Dukes proposed that the class’s recovery would be distributed pro rata, whether there would be some sort of claims procedure, based on the particular applicant’s date of non-promotion, or whether class counsel would dispose of the money through a cy pres distribution. Regardless, the Court held that the Trial by Formula approach would violate the Rules Enabling Act because it would abridge or modify Wal-Mart’s right to present affirmative defenses to individual backpay determinations. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2561 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hummel, D. v. Walmart Stores, Inc, Aplt

3. ““An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established ...if. ..a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race... and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity. ..””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 126 F. Supp. 3d 973 - Swann v. Time Warner Entertainment Co.