Lewis v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
731 F.2d 1535 · 1984
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Rollins v. TechSouth, Inc. (1987), Turnes v. Bank Na (1994)
26 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 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 · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Once discrimination has been proven, whether by circumstantial or direct evidence, a presumption of entitlement to appropriate remedies such as injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as well as hiring and back pay arises. The burden then shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption by showing that the discriminatee would not have been hired absent the discrimination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Some plaintiffs are able to prove the existence of discriminatory intent by direct evidence; in these rare cases, the plaintiff is not required to rely on the inference of discrimination created by the prima facie case of McDonnell Douglas, [citation omitted] If the factfinder believes the direct evidence presented by the plaintiff, a presumption is created that the adverse employment action taken against the plaintiff was a product of that discriminatory intent, [citation omitted] At this point, just as with a successful showing by the plaintiff of the discriminatory intent based upon circumstantial evidence, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the adverse action would have been taken even in the absence of the discriminatory motive. Id. at 1143 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once discrimination has been established ... a presumption of entitlement to appropriate remedies ... arises.... The burden then shifts to the employer to rebut by showing [by a preponderance of the evidence] that the discriminatee would not have been hired absent the discrimination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Turnes v. Bank Na
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.