Perry v. Kunz’s Empirical Analysis
878 F.2d 1056 · 1989
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 2010 · most notably Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc. (1996), Beshears v. Asbill (1991)
9 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Employer Practices It shall be unlawful for an employer— (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual ... because of such individual’s age; (2) to limit, segregate, or classify [its] employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect [the employee’s] status as an employee, because of such individual's age; or”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the trial court failed to recognize that an ADEA plaintiff is not required to prove a prima facie case utilizing only the so-called McDonnell Douglas method of proof, but may attempt to utilize either that indirect method of proof or may attempt to prove that age was a determining factor in defendant’s decision to terminate her utilizing direct evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the evidence consists of direct testimony that the defendant acted with a discriminatory motive, and the trier of fact accepts this testimony, the ultimate issue of discrimination is proved. Defendant cannot refute this evidence by mere articulation of other reasons; the legal standard changes dramatically: “Once an [illegal] motive is proved to have been a significant or substantial factor in an employment decision, defendant can rebut only by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the same decision would have been reached even absent the presence of that factor.””
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.