Wu v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
847 F.2d 1480 · 1988
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Combs v. Plantation Patterns (1997), Alexander v. Fulton County (2000)
33 federal appellate · 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 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 255 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 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 · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a prospective promotion is not a property or liberty interest protected by the fourteenth amendment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]o establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he was qualified for and applied for the promotion; (3) that he was rejected; and (4) that other equally or less qualified employees who were not members of the protected class were promoted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“also failed to prove that an equally or less qualified male was promoted during the time of her promotional application.” Id. In Hill, even though the court quoted the McDonnell-Douglas standard verbatim — and therefore did not include a relative qualifications element — it stated that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walker v. Mortham
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.