Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
880 F.2d 1564 · 1989
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co. (2001), Sumner v. United States Postal Service (1990)
49 federal appellate · 9 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 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) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 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 · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston · Lorillard v. Pons
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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse, and the Second Circuit in Grant certainly talk about a circumstance which places a burden upon a defendant, but that circumstance is not constituted of the plaintiff presenting direct evidence. And I don’t know how anybody could get that from the cases. Presenting evidence, we all know what it means. You could have the most incredible witness imaginable get on the stand and testify: “I heard Mr. Pennington say that he was firing Mr. Ostrowski because he wanted to get rid of this person who was hiring old people.” That is the presentation of direct evidence. And under your formulation you could have somebody get up, who was impeached from A to Z, and still you would not have to present any — you don’t have to prove other facts. I don’t know what that means. The Supreme Court held, very clear and what the Second Circuit held, and I’m reading 490 U.S. at page 244[,109 S.Ct. at page 1787]: “Once a plaintiff in a Title YII case shows that gender played a motivating part in an employment decision, the defendant may avoid a finding of liability only by proving that it would have made the same decision even if it had not allowed gender to play such a role.” That’s the holding of the court. That is not saying once a plaintiff produces some direct evidence. It says once a plaintiff shows.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an illegitimate factor played a motivating or substantial role in the employment decision,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the new trial determines both issues in [plaintiff's] favor, he would thereby recover double the $50,000 award to which he is already entitled on the retaliation claim.” 880 F.2d at 1572 . Expressing its reluctance to order a new trial on this issue, the Court stated”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.