Barnes v. Inc a Millis S a S’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 24 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 298 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably 24 Cal. 4th 317 - Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000), Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals (1994)
19 federal appellate · 24 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters · Castaneda v. Partida
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 298 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A work force reduction situation occurs when business considerations cause an employer to eliminate one or more positions within the company. An employee is not eliminated as part of a work force reduction when he or she is replaced after his or her discharge. However, a person is not replaced when another employee is assigned to perform the plaintiffs duties in addition to other duties, or when the work is redistributed among other existing employees already performing related work. A person is replaced only when another employee is hired or reassigned to perform the plaintiffs duties.”
49 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence tending to indicate that the employer singled out the plaintiff for discharge for impermissible reasons.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he guiding principle is that the evidence must be sufficiently probative to allow a fact-finder to believe that an employer intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff because of [the plaintiff's membership in a protected class].”
4 later decisions 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.