Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 907 F.2d 1354 - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

907 F.2d 1354 · 1990

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
October 1993
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)

Relies on Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Hildebrand v. Social Security Administration · Easter House v. United States · Wrenn v. Gould · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It shall not be unlawful for an employer, employment agency, or labor organization— (2) to observe the terms of a bona fide seniority system or any bona fide employee benefit plan such as a retirement, pension, or insurance plan, which is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this chapter, except that no such employee benefit plan shall excuse the failure to hire any individual, and no such seniority system or employee benefit plan shall require or permit the involuntary retirement of any individual specified by section 631(a) of this title because of the age of such individual.... 29 U.S.C. § 623 (f)(2).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “We do not believe that Congress § 4(f)(2) to reach circumstances like these where laid-off employees had the option to forego retirement and remain with the company on layoff while awaiting recall. Rather, we think [section 623(f)(2) ] proscribes the use of employee benefit plans as a means of forcing older workers off the job. The choice between retirement and unpaid layoff does not constitute involuntary retirement where, as here, continued work was not an option for any of the affected employees, and the employee’s layoff status was unrelated to age.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “was broad enough to encompass a variety of fringe benefits, regardless whether the cost of those benefits increased with age. Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1625.10(b) (1988)). Moreover, the Court stated that”
    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.