Menard v. First Security Services Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
848 F.2d 281 · 1988
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 30 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Mesnick v. General Electric Co. (1991), Medina-Munoz v. Rj Reynolds Tobacco Company (1990)
46 federal appellate · 30 district · 3 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. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston · United States v. Hale
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is clear that merely making out a prima facie case does not automatically save appellant from a summary judgment motion. “Indeed, the inference of discrimination created by the prima facie case is dispelled once the employer’s reason is stated, until and unless the latter is shown to be a pretext.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“'that [s]he was doing [her] job well enough to rute out the possibility that [s]he was fired for inadequate job performance, absolute or relative.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“cannot meet his burden of proving “pretext” simply by refuting or questioning the defendants’ articulated reason. Merely casting doubt on the employer’s articulated reason does not suffice to meet the plaintiff’s burden of demonstrating discriminatory intent, for “[t]he defendant need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons” in the first place. To hold otherwise would impose an almost impossible burden of proving “absence of discriminatory motive.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.