Daniels’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably Burns v. City of Columbus, Department of Public Safety, Division of Police (1996), Gorlikowski v. Tolbert (1995)
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he order and allocation of proof, applicable in a disparate treatment case under Title VII, may be utilized in adjudicating race discrimination claims arising under sections 1981 and 1983.”); Shah v. General Elec. Co., 816 F.2d 264 , 267 n. 1 (6th Cir.1987) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 100 F. Supp. 2d 509 - Hardman v. University of Akron · 44 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1477, 44 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,411, 44 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,412 Black Law Enforcement Officers Association Ed Irvine Harold Craig v. The City of Akron the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 7 Joseph P. Wheeler Sidney Foster Virgil Collins Phillip Barnes, Chief of Police“bears the burden of pursuasion on the issue of ultimate discriminatory intent, ... the burden of production shifts: The Plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimi-nation_ Once the Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant “to articulate some legitimate non-discriminatory reason” for the adverse employment action.... If the Defendant successfully presents a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action, the Plaintiff must prove that the reasons proffered by the Defendant were a mere pretext for discrimination.... Plaintiff’s burden of showing pretext “merges with the ultimate burden of persuading the court that [the plaintiff] has been the victim of intentional discrimination.””
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.