Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 841 F.3d 527 - DeJesus v. WP Co.

DeJesus v. WP Co.’s Empirical Analysis

841 F.3d 527 · 2016

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
July 2019
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 12 district ·

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To be clear, courts should not evaluate the reasonableness of the employer’s business decisions, such as whether it made financial sense to terminate an employee who generated substantial revenue .... Rather, the factfinder is tasked with evaluating the reasonableness of the decisionmaker’s belief because honesty and reasonableness are linked: a belief may be so unreasonable that a factfinder could suspect it was not honestly held.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Has the employee produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find [1] that the employer's asserted ... reason was not the actual reason and [2] that the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee on the basis of [age]?”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “do not routinely require plaintiffs to submit evidence over and above rebutting the employer's stated explanation in order to avoid summary judgment[,]”
    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.