Doan v. Seagate Technology, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
82 F.3d 974 · 1996
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 21 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Beaird v. Seagate Technology, Inc. (1998), Towerridge, Inc. v. T.A.O., Inc. (1997)
23 federal appellate · 21 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins · Provenzano v. United States · Cone v. Longmont United Hospital Ass'n · Burrus v. United Telephone Co. of Kansas, Inc.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We construe the evidence and inferences most favorably to the nonmoving party.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Statistics taken in isolation are generally not probative of age discrimination.” In this case, [the plaintiffs] statistical evidence is flawed because it failed to compare similarly situated individuals and failed to eliminate nondiscriminatory reasons for the numerical disparities .... “A plaintiffs statistical evidence must focus on eliminating nondiscriminatory explanations for the disparate treatment by showing disparate treatment between comparable individuals.” Statistical evidence which fails to properly take into account nondiscriminatory explanations does not permit an inference of pretext.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Statistics taken in isolation are generally not probative of age discrimination” Jones v. Unisys Corp., 54 F.3d 624 , 632 (10th Cir.1995). In this case [plaintiffs] statistical evidence is flawed because it failed to compare similarly situated individuals and failed to eliminate nondiscriminatory reasons for the numerical disparities.... Statistical evidence which fails to properly take into account nondiscriminatory explanations does not permit an inference of pretext. Rea v. Martin Marietta Corp., 29 F.3d 1450 , 1456 (10th Cir.1994). ( 82 F.3d at 979 ).”
1 later decision 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.