Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 732 F.2d 1037 - White v. Vathally

White v. Vathally’s Empirical Analysis

732 F.2d 1037 · 1984

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
2
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 24 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Medina-Munoz v. Rj Reynolds Tobacco Company (1990), Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico (1988)

39 federal appellate · 24 district · 2 state decisions

44019841990200020102020decided

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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 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 · Washington v. Davis · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters · Board of Trustees of Keene State College v. Sweeney

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

  1. “Merely casting doubt on the employer’s articulated reason does not suffice to meet the plaintiff’s burden of demonstrating discriminatory intent, for “[t]he defendant need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons” in the first place. To hold otherwise would impose an almost impossible burden of proving “absence of discriminatory motive.””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he defendant need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “we have recognized that the analytical framework for proving discriminatory treatment under Title VII is equally applicable to constitutional claims.”
    2 later decisions 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.