Marzano v. Computer Science Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
91 F.3d 497 · 1996
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 21 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Fisher v. Vassar College (1997), Podobnik v. United States Postal Service (2005)
26 federal appellate · 21 district · 12 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
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters · United Families of America v. Kendrick
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the typical ease, the plaintiff attempts to establish the employer’s motivation by a process of elimination. In other words, because plaintiffs generally cannot present evidence affirmatively pointing to their employer’s actual reason for taking certain action against them, they must instead try to show that no reason other than discrimination is plausible, and that accordingly discrimination must have been the reason. To enable a jury to reach this conclusion, plaintiffs must establish three elements: (1) that their employer took an adverse employment action against them; (2) that the facts of the case are compatible with discrimination being the reason; (3) that the employer is unable to provide an alternative nondiscriminatory reason for the action, or that its stated reason is false. Since there must be some reason for the employer’s action and since no reason other than discrimination has been shown to be plausible, this scheme allows a jury to infer that discrimination must be the reason. The burden-shifting analysis enunciated by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas [Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)] and developed and refined in subsequent judicial forays into the subject is designed to ensure that plaintiff has enough evidence to construct the chain of inferences described in the previous paragraph, and therefore get to trial. In the first instance, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case. The evidentiary burden at this”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact”
2 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.