Odom v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 633A (§ 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 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 · Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc. v. United States · Thornbrough v. Columbus and Greenville Railroad Company · Page v. Bolger
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Each panel member's individual top five list included the names of Inspectors Herrera, Horton, Nichols and Price. There was initially some disagreement over whether to include Inspector Jennings or Inspector Hurlbut, but Inspector Hurlbut was ultimately agreed upon.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Odom v. Frank“persuaded by the totality of the circumstances surrounding the promotion process that the offered explanation for the denial of the [subject] position is a pretext for discriminatory actions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Odom v. Frank“despite the fact that Postal Service Guidelines specified that 'every effort will be made to designate at least one woman or one minority group member to serve on each review committee.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Odom v. Frank
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.