Diaz v. American Telephone & Telegraph’s Empirical Analysis
752 F.2d 1356 · 1985
Citation profile
70 federal appellate · 23 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1986), Warren III v. City of Carlsbad (1995)
70 federal appellate · 23 district · 1 state decisions
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 · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp.
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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Statistical data is relevant because it can be used to establish a general discriminatory pattern in an employer’s hiring or promotion practices. Such a discriminatory pattern is probative of motive and can therefore create an inference of discriminatory intent with respect to the individual employment decision at issue.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'assigned reason' was 'a pretext or discriminatory in its application.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In order to preclude a plaintiff from recovery in all cases in which the challenged position is filled by a member of the same protected class, we would have to assume that Title VII protects only group rights. It is, of course, true that Title VII was designed to deter and remedy discrimination on the basis of group characteristics and to remove barriers that favor certain groups over others. But, at the same time, Title VII’s focus on the rights of individual members of protected classes is ‘unambiguous.’ It is clear that Congress never intended to give an employer license to discriminate against some employees on the basis of race or sex merely because he favorably treats other members of the employees’ group. Title VII " protects individuals, as well as groups, from discrimination on the basis of group characteristics.” Id. at 1360 (internal quotations marks and citations omitted).”
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.