Palmer v. Barry’s Empirical Analysis
894 F.2d 449 · 1990
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 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 · United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans · Mohasco Corp. v. Silver
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred and notice of the charge ... shall be served upon the person against whom the charge is made within ten days thereafter, except that in a case of an unlawful employment practice with respect to which the person aggrieved has initially instituted proceedings with a State or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, such charge shall be filed by or on behalf of the person aggrieved within three hundred days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, or within thirty days after receiving notice that the State or local agency has terminated proceedings under the State or local law, whichever is earlier, and a copy of such charge shall be filed by the Commission with the State or local agency.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[o]n the one hand, the District Court’s judgment in Palmer I suggests that between 1982 and mid-1984 the District discriminated against Palmer in failing to promote him, but that after mid-1984 the District acted toward Palmer pursuant to legitimate business reasons. If so ... his complaint must be rejected as untimely. However, Palmer I and Palmer II also suggest that the District’s discriminatory treatment of Palmer may have extended beyond mid-1984. See, e.g., Palmer I (District offered no evidence that “policy” of making race a “factor in Fire Departi ment promotions” had changed); id. (Mayor’s policy goal was achieved “in part ... by leaving the Communications Division without a Deputy Chief until after plaintiff retired and was replaced”); Palmer II (Palmer’s allegations of discrimina tion after mid-1984 not found “unconnected” with his allegations of discrimination before that time).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Palmer v. Kelly“[defendants have adduced evidence of nondiscriminatory reasons for their failure to promote plaintiff after mid-1984, i.e., ... budgetary concerns, i.e., that the Fire Department was becoming top heavy with Deputy Chiefs. Moreover, in 1985, [Deputy City Administrator] Downs reversed himself and conditionally acceded to Coleman’s recommendation [to promote Palmer].... Downs conditioned his approval upon a commitment from plaintiff that, if promoted, he would remain on duty for 18 to 24 months. As a result of a breakdown of communications between Downs, Chiéf Coleman and the plaintiff, plaintiff resigned without knowing that Downs had conditionally approved plaintiffs promotion ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Palmer v. Kelly
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.