Maddox v. Claytor’s Empirical Analysis
764 F.2d 1539 · 1985
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Cooper v. Southern Co. (2004), David Hipp Brad Stein v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co (2001)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 (§ 717 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 · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is important to note that no bright line of two, three, or more standard deviations can be drawn to distinguish automatically between fair and discriminatory employment practices. Just as a standard deviation of two or three does not necessarily exclude legitimate causes other than change, so a [standard deviation] below that range does not necessarily exclude discrimination as the cause. The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned, “We caution only that statistics are not irrefutable; they come in infinite variety and, like any other kind of evidence, may be rebutted. In short, their usefulness depends on all the surrounding facts and circumstances.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Multiple regression analysis] measures the probability that the calculated disparity could occur randomly—but the analysis in no way validates the calculation of the disparity itself. If the tested disparity is based on erroneous assumptions or suffers from flaws in the underlying data, then standard deviation analysis is foredoomed to yield an equally faulty result.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court will not disturb a district court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard unless it is left 'with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made' after making all credibility choices in favor of the fact-finder's choice, in light of the record as a whole.”
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.