Conkwright v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
933 F.2d 231 · 1991
Citation profile
111 federal appellate · 22 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 218 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Proud v. Stone (1991), Rush v. McDonald's Corp. (1992)
111 federal appellate · 22 district · 2 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. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Dister v. Continental Group, Inc. · Charbonnages De France v. Smith · Lovelace v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
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 218 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) prohibited employer conduct (2) taken for the purpose of interfering (3) with the attainment of any right to which the employee may become entitled.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'prevent[ ] unscrupulous employers from discharging or harassing their employees in order to keep them from obtaining ... pension rights.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Plaintiff's] suggestion that [the employer] acted illegally because it acted to save money proves too much. Under that reasoning, any actions by an employer that result in savings would be suspect. It is obvious that benefit costs make up a large amount of the costs of an employee to a company, . . . but [this] undeniable proposition[] [is] not sufficient standing alone to prove the requisite intent by the path of pretext.”
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.