Malarkey v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
983 F.2d 1204 · 1993
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 19 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co. (2001), Butts v. City of New York Department of Housing Preservation & Development (1993)
43 federal appellate · 19 district ·
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. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans · Jones v. Howard · Salem v. United States Lines Company · Kashif v. United States
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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e see no reason why a retaliation claim must arise before administrative proceedings terminate in order to be reasonably related. Instead, the rule is that a claim must arise only after the EEOC complaint has been filed.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It hardly seems drastic to require [the defendant] to obey the law as set forth in the ADEA with respect to [the plaintiff]. It is difficult to discern what heavy burden the order places on the employer: it covers a single employee in a company employing nearly two thousand in its corporate headquarters alone. The injunction does not require [the defendant] to change employment practices, reorganize departments, or rewrite official procedures. Moreover, we do not regard it as superfluous to subject an employer found to have discriminated to the district court’s contempt powers, were it to repeat its retaliatory conduct.”
1 later decision 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.