Bethea v. Levi Strauss & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Because Thurston makes clear that we must interpret the liquidated damages provisions in a way that would not permit ‘an award of double damages in almost every case,’ Thurston, 469 U.S. at 128 [ 105 S.Ct. at 625 ] we must seek a standard for willfulness that distinguishes between a violation, which is almost always intentional, and a willful violation, leading to double damages.” Dreyer [v. Arco Chem. Co., 801 F.2d 651 , 657 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 906 [ 107 S.Ct. 1348 , 94 L.Ed.2d 519 (1987).] The Thurston Court looked to the legislative history of the ADEA which indicated that “Congress intended for liquidated damages to be punitive in nature.” Thurston, 469 U.S. at 125 [ 105 S.Ct. at 624 ], In its analysis of the Thurston standard of willfulness, one court concluded that “[t]he essence of punitive damages is that they may be awarded ‘for conduct that is outrageous.’ ” Dreyer, 801 F.2d at 657 (citation omitted). Thus, in order that the liquidated damages be based on evidence that does not simply duplicate that needed for the compensatory damages, there must be some additional evidence of the employer’s “reckless disregard.” Thurston, 469 U.S. at 128 [ 105 S.Ct. at 625 ].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Stites Concrete, Inc. · Joe E. Cooper, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Asplundh Tree Expert Company, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee

2. “[T]he plaintiff has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of age discrimination. Once such a showing has been made, the burden of production shifts to the employer to produce evidence showing that its actions were taken for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. If the employer makes such a showing, the ultimate burden that a plaintiff must meet is to show that age was a determining factor in the actions taken by the employer.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morgan v. Arkansas Gazette · Smith v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

3. “'[B]ecause the case was fully tried on the merits, we focus our attention on the ultimate question presented and not on the adequacy of a party's showing at any particular stage of the analysis....'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hall v. American Bakeries Co. · Smith v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.