green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
59.6 score
“efendant used no formal procedures for posting notice of available promotions or for determining who would be offered the promotion. instead, the company relied on 'word of mouth' and informal review procedures.”
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Ellison v. Darden Restaurants, Inc.
See Bernard v. Gulf Oil Corp., 643 F.Supp. 1494, 1505 (E.D.Tex.1986) (holding that plaintiffs failure to make request for promotion precluded plaintiff from establishing prima facie case), rev’d in part on other grounds, 841 F.2d 547 (5th Cir.1988); but cf. Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1134 (11th Cir.1984) (holding that prima facie case may be established where employee does not have notice or opportunity to apply for pro motion).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Scott v. United Parcel Service
tatistics can be relevant and important in an individual case. . . . but statistics alone cannot make a case of individual disparate treatment.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
David Ojeda-Sanchez v. Carmelo Hernandez-Rubio
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
the court did not explain how it had arrived at the 20 cents an hour figure.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lisa M. Holland v. David A. Gee
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
we are mindful . . . that when a disparate treatment case is fully tried . . . both the trial and the appellate courts should proceed directly to the ultimate question in the case.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Howard Lockridge v. Bd. of Trustees etc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
efendant used no formal procedures for posting notice of available promotions or for determining who would be offered the promotion. instead, the company relied on 'word of mouth' and informal review procedures.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Howard Lockridge v. Bd. of Trustees etc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
defendant used no formal procedures for posting notice of available promotions or for determining who would be offered the promotion. instead, the company relied on 'word of mouth' and informal review procedures
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nicole L. McGuire v. Harford County
Where, as here, “a decision-maker disseminates information about available positions through informal channels,” a plaintiff may allege a prima facie case by showing “that the company had some reason or duty to consider [her] for the post.” Walker, 286 F.3d at 1275–76 (quoting Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133 (11th Cir. 1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lawanna Tynes v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
For these reasons, we have repeatedly emphasized that after a trial we “should not revisit whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case.” Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1194 (11th Cir. 2004); see also, e.g., Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d 1047, 1056 (11th Cir. 2012); Collado v. United Parcel Serv., Co., 419 F.3d 1143, 1150 (11th Cir. 2005); Tidwell v. Carter Prods., 135 F.3d 1422 , 1426 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998); Richardson v. Leeds Police Dep’t, 71 F.3d 801 , 806 (11th Cir. 1995); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1129 (11th Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ferman Management Services Corporation
Indeed, when a disparate treatment lawsuit like this action is fully tried, a court reviewing the verdict “should proceed directly to the ‘ultimate question’ in the case: ‘whether the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.’” Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1129 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting U.S. Postal Serv.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McCreight v. AuburnBank
While this statistic is “relevant and important . . . statistics alone cannot make a case of individual disparate treatment.” Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1132 (11th Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. Florida Tourism Industry Marketing Corporation,Inc.
Cases in the Eleventh Circuit “are clear, however, that ‘statistics alone cannot make a case of individual disparate treatment.’” Carter v. Three Springs Residential Treatment, 132 F.3d 635 , 642 n.5 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1131 (11th Cir. 1984)); see Oliver v. VSoft Corp., No. 1:09-CV-0185-CAP-WEJ, 2010 WL 11505776 , at *11 (N.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Weatherington v. Dothan City Board of Education
See Schoenfeld v. Babbitt, 168 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 1999); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1131 (11th Cir. 1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Santiago v. Meyer Tool Incorporated
Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1131 (11th Cir. 1984) (discussing statistics in Title VII race discrimination claims).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Turner v. Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University
In such a case, a plaintiff can make out a prima facie case as “long as [s]he establishes that the [employer] had some reason or duty to consider [her] for the post.” Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133 (11th Cir. 1984) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Myra Furcron v. Mail Centers Plus, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1136 (11th Cir. 1984).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ronnie Smith v. Thomasville Georgia
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
We held that in those circumstances a plaintiff makes out a prima facie case “as long as he establishes that the [employer] had some reason or duty to consider him for the post.” Id. at 1133.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stephanie Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Put another way, the issue is whether there is ‘a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence, that would allow, a. jury to infer intentional discrimination.’” See Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1129 (11th Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. VWR International, LLC
In Smith, we distinguished the prior ease of Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133 (11th Cir. 1984), which “involved a system where there was no formal notice of jobs, and the company relied on word of mouth and informal review procedures,” and thus the plaintiff “had no way of knowing about [a specific job’s] availability.” Smith, 352 F.3d at 1346 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Valley v. Ocean Sky Limo
Finally, “[t]he court does not have to accept uncon-tradicted evidence [on the hourly rate] if there is a reason for rejecting it.” Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1137 (11th Cir.1984) (citing King v. McCord, 707 F.2d 466, 468 (11th Cir.1983)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Crane v. Holder
Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133-34 (11th Cir.1984) (emphasis added); see also, Walker v. Prudential Prop. & Cas.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Karl Tartt v. Wilson County, Tennessee
Co., 892 F.2d at 350 (finding in a disparate treatment case that plaintiffs established • a prima facie case where they had applied to specific positions through appropriate channels and were repeatedly passed over for white applicants who were hired by word of mouth); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133 (11th Cir.1984) (finding in a disparate treatment case that an employer “has a duty to consider all those who might reasonably be interested” where the record clearly showed that the plaintiff had repeatedly communicated his interest in a specific job to the employer …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fred Beebe v. City of San Antonio Through Its Agent, City Public Service Board of San Antonio D/B/A CPS Energy
Id.; Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1132-33 (11th Cir. 1984). -5- 04-13-00134-CV the [employer’s] reasons are pretextual.” Gladden-Green v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., No. 03-11-00468-CV, 2013 WL 6175622 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 20, 2013, no pet.) (citing Amburgey v. Corhart Refractories Corp., Inc., 936 F.2d 805, 813 (5th Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leanne Renee Kidd v. Mando American Corporation
(2×)
In Jones v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 977 F.2d 527, 533 (11th Cir.1992), we reiterated that when an employer does not formally announce that it is seeking to hire for a vacant position within the company, the plaintiff need not advance evidence that she applied for the vacant position to state a prima facie case.' Under these circumstances, an employer “has a duty to consider all those who might reasonably be interested, as well as those who have learned of the job opening and expressed an interest." Id. (quoting Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133-34 (11th Cir.1984)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shedrick v. District Board of Trustees of Miami-Dade College
Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1131 (11th Cir.1984).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Fulton v. Department of Social & Health Services
(4×)
In Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133 (11th Cir. 1984), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted that such informal procedures could lead to discrimination because important information about available promotions could be limited to a segment of the workforce, and such procedures do not place a “check” on individual decision-maker biases. 24 Under such circumstances, the court held that (1) a plaintiff could make out a prima facie case and create a presumption of discrimination as long as the plaintiff proved that his employer had “some reason or duty to consider …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Perez-Dickson v. City of Bridgeport
Unless the plaintiffs can show that the defendants' explanations are inherently suspect or can present other direct or circumstantial evidence suggesting that the proffered reasons are not true, then the defendants are entitled to summary judgment." [Emphasis in original.]), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 878 , 111 S.Ct. 211 , 112 L.Ed.2d 171 (1990); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1131 (11th Cir.1984) ("statistics alone cannot make a case of individual disparate treatment"); Hudson v. International Business Machines Corp., 620 F.2d 351, 355 (2d Cir.1980) (statistics, standing alone…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holland v. Gee
(2×)
Put another way, the issue is whether there is “a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination.” Id. at 1328 (quotation marks and footnote omitted). 2 We have recognized that “[a]fter a trial on the merits, [we] should not revisit whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case.” Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1194 (11th Cir.2004); accord Tidwell v. Carter Prods., 135 F.3d 1422 , 1426 n. 1 (11th Cir.1998) (“Our task is not to revisit whether the plaintiff below successfully established a prima …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matthews v. City of West Point
"Where the plaintiff claims discrimination in promotion on the basis that jobs for which she was qualified were never posted or otherwise opened for formal applications, she must establish that the company had some reason or duty to consider h[im] for the post.” Jones v. Flagship International, 793 F.2d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 1986) (citing Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Worlts, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133 (11th Cir. 1984)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas v. Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C.
Jones v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., Inc., 977 F.2d 527, 533 (11th Cir.1992); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133-1134 (11th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rollins v. ALABAMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM
Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133-34 (11th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. AUSTAL, USA, LLC
Jones v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., Inc., 977 F.2d 527, 533 (11th Cir.1992); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133-1134 (11th Cir.1984). 1.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C.
Jones v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., Inc., 977 F.2d 527, 533 (11th Cir.1992); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133-1134 (11th Cir.1984). 1.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hedgeman v. Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C.
Jones v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., Inc., 977 F.2d 527, 533 (11th Cir.1992); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133-1134 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lane v. CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS AND MANAGEMENT CO.
Finally, “[t]he court does not have to accept uncontradicted evidence [on the hourly rate] if there is a reason for rejecting-it.” Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1137 (11th Cir.1984) (citing King v. McCord, 707 F.2d 466, 468 (11th Cir.1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Luyen Huu Nguyen v. William Joiner Center for the Study of War & Social Consequences
See Winbush v. State, 66 F.3d 1471, 1479-1481 (8th Cir. 1995) (concluding that plaintiffs were excused from applying for promotion where employer’s promotion policy had been found to reflect “systematic and purposeful [racial] discrimination],” and was occasioned by racial slurs and degrading treatment to only African-American employees); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133-1134 (11th Cir. 1984) (concluding, in failure to promote case, that plaintiff was not required to request specific job where plaintiff had no way of knowing about its availability because employer …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Valley Hospitality Services, LLC
Although we have noted that the lack of an application for a specific job would not defeat a failure to hire claim where the plaintiff applied for "work” but was initially told that no full-time positions were available, we explained that the plaintiff learned of the possibility of a position "by word of mouth” and that "[t]he defendant did not advertise its job openings.” Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1129, 1132 (11th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Allen v. Deerfield Manufacturing Inc.
Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Emmanuel Joseph v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
“Unless the individual plaintiff can point to some specific instance of discrimination, there is no wrong for the court to remedy.” Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1131 (11th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Valley Hospitality Services, LLC.
Cf. Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1132 (11th Cir.1984) (refusing to require plaintiff to apply for a job when he had no way of knowing about its availability).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Everett v. State of MS
Dick Co., 231 F.3d 1016, 1021-22 (6th Cir.2000) (following Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1132-33 (11th Cir.1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeanne Smith v. J. Smith Lanier & Co.
Moreover, Smith advances no evidence suggesting it was JSL’s policy or practice to transfer individuals to vacant positions who had not first specifically applied for them. 3 *1346 Smith cites Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133 (11th Cir.1984), to support her argument that JSL had some reason or duty to consider Smith for other positions, even though Smith never applied for those positions.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lockridge v. Board Of Trustees, Of The University Of Arkansas
See also EEOC v. Metal Service Co., 892 F.2d 341, 348 (3rd Cir.1990) ("Courts have generally held that the failure to formally apply for a job opening will not bar a Title VII plaintiff from establishing a prima facie claim of discriminatory hiring, as long as the plaintiff made every reasonable attempt to convey his interest in the job to the employer."); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133 (11th Cir.1984) ("[D]efendant used no formal procedures for posting notice of available promotions or for determining who would be offered the promotion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wendell Lyons Donald Tate Robert L. Claiborne Rosevelt Willson v. Gordon R. England, Secretary of the Navy
See Fadhl v. City and County of San Francisco, 741 F.2d 1163, 1165-66 (9th Cir.1984) (“When an employer’s discriminatory treatment consists of a failure to consider an applicant’s qualifications, or in the use of evaluative criteria that are discriminatory, the applicant need not prove that he or she was qualified to fill the position sought in order to obtain some relief.”), abrogated on other grounds by Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 , 109 S.Ct. 1775 , 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989); see also Lockridge v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ark., 294 F.3d 1010, 1014 (8th Cir.2002) (st…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donahoo v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
The primary case relied upon in Dews held that the plaintiff did not have to satisfy the “applied for” or “was considered” elements of a prima facie case “when he did not know about it [the vacancy].” Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1132-1133 (11th Cir. 1984); see also Bernard v. Gulf Oil Corp., 841 F.2d 547 (5th Cir.1988) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Howard Lockridge v. Board Of Trustees, Of The University Of Arkansas
See Kehoe v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 96 F.3d 1095 , 1105 n. 13 (8th Cir.1996) ("the application requirement should be excused because Anheuser had a reason or duty to consider Kehoe for the job.")(citing Shannon v. Ford Motor Co., 72 F.3d 678, 682 (8th Cir.1996) ("It would be ironic ... if a victim of discrimination were unable to vindicate her rights because she had the peculiar misfortune of being discriminated against in a way that necessarily prevented her from making her prima facie case.")); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133 (11th Cir.1984) ("defendant used no formal …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc.
See Jones v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., Inc., 977 F.2d 527, 533 (11th Cir.1992); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133-34 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bennett v. Quark, Inc.
While the “law does not require that a plaintiff formally apply for the job in question,” the law does require “that the employer be on specific notice that the plaintiff seeks employment or, where informal hiring procedures are used, that the plaintiff be in the group of people who might reasonably be interested in the particular job.” Id. (citing Grant v. Bethlehem Steel, 635 F.2d 1007 , 1017 (2d Cir.1980); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133 (11th Cir.1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard M. Kadas v. MCI Systemhouse Corporation
Some cases say yes, Walther v. Lone Star Gas Co., 977 F.2d 161 (5th Cir.1992) (per curiam); MacDissi v. Valmont Industries Inc., supra, 856 F.2d at 1058 ; Chrisner v. Complete Auto Transit, Inc., 645 F.2d 1251 , 1259 n. 7 (6th Cir.1981), Davis v. Califano, 613 F.2d 957, 962 (D.C.Cir.1979); Reed v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 613 F.2d 757, 762 (9th Cir. 1980); some no, Kidd v. Illinois State Police, 167 F.3d 1084 , 1101 n. 16 (7th Cir.1999); Smith v. Horner, 839 F.2d 1530 , 1536 n. 8 (11th Cir.1988); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1131 (11th Cir.1984) — though it is important…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kadas, Richard M. v. MCI Systemhouse
Cir. 1980); Reed v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 613 F.2d 757, 762 (9th Cir. 1980); some no, Kidd v. Illinois State Police, 167 F.3d 1084 , 1101 n. 16 (7th Cir. 1999); Smith v. Horner, 839 F.2d 1530 , 1536 n. 8 (11th Cir. 1988); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1131 (11th Cir. 1984)--though it is important to note that our own statements of this position, in Kidd and the cases cited there, are brief dicta probably best understood as comments on the weakness of the particular evidence presented in those cases rather than as considered attempts to decide whether statistical evidenc…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Romo v. Texas Department of Transportation
Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1131-32 (11th Cir.1984). 2 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carzell Moore
v.
Walter D. Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center
v.
Walter D. Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center
82-8683.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jul 23, 1984.
Published
Carzell MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Walter D. ZANT, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and
Classification Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 82-8683.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
July 23, 1984.
Robert E. Morin, Stephen B. Bright, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner-appellant.
Susan Boleyn, William B. Hill, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Case below: 722 F.2d 640.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RONEY, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HENDERSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
1
The court en banc holds this case in abeyance for a period of 60 days in order that petitioner may present to the courts of the State of Georgia claims he may have arising out of Stynchcombe v. Floyd, 252 Ga. 113, 311 S.E.2d 828 (1984).