Tolliver v. Xerox Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
918 F.2d 1052 · 1990
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Grayson v. K Mart Corp. (1996), White v. BFI Waste Services, LLC (2004)
27 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 255 · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 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 Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Raphan v. United States · Zerman v. Melton · Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“claims of the administrative claimant and the subsequent plaintiff arise out of the same circumstances and occur within the same general time frame.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he purpose of the administrative charge requirement is to afford the agency the opportunity to “seek to eliminate any alleged unlawful practice by informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion.” 29 U.S.C. § 626 (d). If the agency charged with that task is satisfied that a timely filed administrative charge affords it sufficient opportunity to discharge these responsibilities with respect to similar grievances, it serves no administrative purpose to require the filing of repetitive ADEA charges....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[U]nder Title VII, the single filing rule has been used only to permit joining a preexisting suit in which at least one plaintiff had filed a timely charge. But, . . . that consequence flows from Title VII's requirement that no person may initiate a Title VII suit without obtaining a right-to-sue letter . . . . There is no comparable requirement for ADEA suits and therefore no reason to require ADEA plaintiffs seeking to benefit from the single filing rule to join preexisting individual suits.”
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.