Warren v. Halstead Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
802 F.2d 746 · 1986
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Scotts Company v. United Industries Corporation (2002), Brown v. Nucor Corp. (2009)
14 federal appellate · 10 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. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 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 · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although statistics cannot alone prove the existence of a pattern or practice of discrimination or even establish a prima facie case shifting to the employer the burden of rebutting the inference raised by the figures, “statistical analysis served and will continue to serve an important role in cases in which the existence of discrimination is disputed.” Warren, 862 F.2d at 758, quoting from Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 , 339 [ 97 S.Ct. 1843 , 1856, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 ] (1977).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[s]tatistics with regard to the defendant's employment policy and practice may be helpful ...,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a plaintiff may attempt to produce evidence that the defendant departed from its usual business procedure, or that the procedures by which a decision was made are suspect; plaintiffs may also point to evidence that there are no fixed or reasonably objective standards and procedures for evaluating the applicant. Evidence of a general atmosphere of discrimination may also be considered: proof of historically-limiting opportunity or harassment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.