Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores (No. 471)’s Empirical Analysis
891 F.2d 1177 · 1990
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably O'NEAL v. McAninch (1995), Cecilia Okoye v. The University of Texas Houston Health Science Center (2001)
30 federal appellate · 11 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 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 · Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Communications · United States v. Killough
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'that the misconduct for which [the plaintiff] was discharged was nearly identical to that engaged in by . . . [other] employee[s].'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“burden then shifts to the employer to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for [the adverse employment action], This causes the presumption of discrimination to dissipate. The plaintiff then bears the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer intentionally discriminated against [her] because of [her] protected status. To carry this burden, the plaintiff must produce substantial evidence indicating that the proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason is a pretext for discrimination. The plaintiff must rebut each nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the employer. A plaintiff may establish pretext either through evidence of disparate treatment or by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is false or “unworthy of credence.” An explanation is false or unworthy of credence if it is not the real reason for the adverse employment action.”
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.