897 F. Supp. 2d 346 - Straka v. Comcast Cable’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 631 (§ 12 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Court’s analysis in Gross involved a mixed motives analysis under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 , 109 S.Ct. 1775 , 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989). It explained that unlike a mixed motives case under Title VII where the burden of persuasion shifts to the plaintiff after he or she sufficiently has demonstrated that both permissible and impermissible motives were at play in the decision or action at hand, the ADEA has never been amended to endorse such an approach. [Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 129 S.Ct.] at 2349. Accordingly, the traditional approach in employment cases mandates that the plaintiff retain the burden of proving causation and persuading the finder of fact that the illegal criterion was a substantial factor that had a direct impact in the adverse employment action. Id. at 2351. To the extent defendant is implying that the Court’s use of the phrase “but for” causation should be understood as requiring a showing of sole causation, the contention is misplaced. See Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684, 690 (3d Cir. 2009) (reiterating that the burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff at all times under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis, including the burden of proving “but for” causation) (citing Starceski v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 54 F.3d 1089 , 1096 n.5 (3d Cir. 1995) (“In Miller [v. CIGNA Corp., 47 F.3d 586, 593-94 (3d Cir. 1995)], we rejected the statement in Griffiths [v. CIGNA Corp., 988 F.2d 457 (3d Cir. 1993)] that an”
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.