Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 970 F. Supp. 2d 48 - Francis v. Solis

970 F. Supp. 2d 48 - Francis v. Solis’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
June 2018
most recently cited

7 district ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

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 · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.

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

  1. “Whether the jury could infer discrimination from the combination of (1) the plaintiffs prima facie case; (2) any evidence the plaintiff presents to attack the employer’s proffered explanation for its actions; and (3). any further evidence of discrimination that may be available to the plaintiff (such as independent evidence of discriminatory statements or attitudes on the part of the employer) ...”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Rush v. Federal National Mortgage Association
  2. “A plaintiff may, however, bypass the McDonnell Douglas framework altogether by presenting so-called 'direct evidence'-expressions by the decision maker that [provide] evidence of discriminatory intent without any need for inference .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Markowicz v. Nielsen
  3. “must show more than a general bias against ... employees [with accents]; [ ]he must also introduce enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that [his non-selection] was motivated by that bias”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 282 F. Supp. 3d 308 - Iyoha v. Architect of the Capitol

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.