Greene v. Safeway Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
98 F.3d 554 · 1996
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 41 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 144 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc. (1997), O'neal v. Ferguson Construction Co. (2001)
61 federal appellate · 41 district · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 631 (§ 12 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters · Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins
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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To prevail on an ADEA claim a plaintiff must establish that age was a determining factor in the employer’s challenged decision. The plaintiff need not prove that age was the sole reason for the employer’s acts, but must show that age made the difference in the employer’s decision. Under our precedents, an ADEA plaintiff may proceed by either of two general methods to carry the burden of making her or his case. A party may attempt to meet his burden directly, by presenting direct or circumstantial evidence that age was a determining factor in his discharge. Or, more typically, a party may rely on the proof scheme for a prima facie case established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-56 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom are so clear that reasonable minds could not differ on the conclusion.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the issue whether this Circuit allows a plaintiff in an 'extraordinary' situation to present a prima facie case through the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting approach even though the plaintiff fails to satisfy one or more of the prongs.”
3 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.