green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
13.0 score
“contemporaneous documentation is more reliable than a witness' memory of an event which occurred years earlier.”
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Stouffer v. Duckworth
contemporaneous documentation is more reliable than a witness' memory of an event which occurred years earlier.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greene v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
Under McDonnell Douglas, to set forth a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must ordinarily prove that “(1) the affected employee was within the protected age group; (2)[he] was doing satisfactory work; (3)[he] was discharged despite the adequacy of this work; and (4) a younger person replaced [him.]” Lucas, 857 F.2d at 1400 (quoting E.E.O.C. v. Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d at 507); see also Cone v. Longmont United Hospital Ass’n, 14 F.3d 526, 529 (10th Cir.1994); and Denison v. Swaco Geolograph Co., 941 F.2d 1416, 1420 (10th Cir.1991).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. J.C. Penney Co.
See Rea, 29 F.3d at 1455 ; Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d at 507.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marx v. Schnuck Markets, Inc.
Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d at 507; E.E.O.C. v. Prudential Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 763 F.2d 1166, 1170 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 946 , 106 S.Ct. 312 , 88 L.Ed.2d 289 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Floyd Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“Absent some evidence that *945 such concerns mattered to Serivner when it decided to institute its injured workers policy or when it decided to prevent Bolton from returning, a reasonable jury could not infer that cost savings alone indicate[s] an intent to discriminate on the basis of age.” Bolton, 836 F.Supp. at 793 n. 11 (citing Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d at 511-12). ' The judgment of the United States District ■Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 1 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Berry v. General Motors Corp.
Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d at 507; EEOC v. Prudential Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 763 F.2d 1166, 1170 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 946 , 106 S.Ct. 312 , 88 L.Ed.2d 289 (1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Callan v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Topeka, Inc.
See Lucas v. Dover Corp., 857 F.2d at 1401 ; EEOC v. Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d at 507.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cordova v. Harrah's Reno Hotel-Casino
See Pejic, supra; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d 503, 511 (10th Cir.1988) (evidence does not show discrimination because plaintiff was not similarly situated); Shah v. General Electric Co., 816 F.2d 264, 270 (6th Cir.1987) (absent proof of similarly situated employees, it is not possible to raise an inference of discrimination by proof other employees were not similarly treated); Fitch v. R.J.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
47 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1713, 47 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,331 William Lucas, Jim House, John Thomason, and Howard McCully v. Dover Corporation, Norris Division
(5×)
See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 , 105 S.Ct. 613 , 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985); Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d at 507; Schwager v. Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania, 591 F.2d 58, 60-61 (10th Cir.1979).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Lucas v. Dover Corp.
(5×)
See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 , 105 S.Ct. 613 , 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985); Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d at 507; Schwager v. Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania, 591 F.2d 58, 60-61 (10th Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Leonard K. Hiatt Robert A. Bagby Marvin Crabaugh Gary W. Boatright Ronald L. Roberson Carl D. Houk Jerrold B. Hutchings Duane K. Hinkle Larry L. Burback Stephen J. Miller Kim R. Hardman Kenneth R. Covington Michael E. Valentine Gary L. Yanken Patrick M. Herrley Mike I. Carlson Randall O. Swarthout Sammy L. Cross Darrell D. Miller Ronald L. Stoddard James D. Tolle Larry S. Clark Robert T. Epler Richard W. Cavender Dale Young Robert F. McIntosh Julian R. Nelson Walter T. Gronek Ronald E. Ostendorf Ronald R. Johnson Melvin E. Sayre Robert F. Lannon Gerald T. Dueling Philip J. Eberhardt Roxie L. Jackson Russell P. Eggers Ron G. Van Northwick Thomas M. McMurtry Larry R. Mann Maurice F. McDonald Donald A. Raschke Cleo D. Schroeder Kenneth W. McIntosh Robert A. Podjenski Gilbert R. Throm Donald K. Peters Robert G. Wenzel Cecil B. Miller Leroy W. Roth James L. Wells Charles F. Smartt James W. Jenkins John J. Stamate Gerry W. Spinden David E. Dupree Donald R. Smith James P. Manary Ronald B. Hunt Robert E. Williams Dennis J. Smith Gary E. Metcalf Benny L. Covington Robert E. Wedgwood Norman R. Thomas Jon L. Stone Steven L. Brown John R. Holloway Warren H. Bush Edward W. Berardino v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Utah Corporation United Transportation Union, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amici Curiae. Jerome J. Smith Michael R. Ramold Michael X. Kosmicki Richard J. McCune Daniel L. Eastman Donald E. Looker Robert A. Harger Steven L. Burbach Donald S. Seghi Roland G. Beard Earl J. Vance Bruce O. Stafford Richard K. Loehning, Jr. Tracy B. Miller Gary L. Jones Robert M. Hagy William A. Myers Gene F. Noonan Kenneth J. Puchalski Robert L. Keenan Robert F. Garland David A. Growe Michael P. O'Neil Timothy J. Hoppe Albert G. Kelsch Steven F. Massey John M. Crawford Tarrell L. Newman Bill G. Hamilton Verl W. Moore Charles W. Rohe Albert W. Greenwood Gerald A. Gompert Gary L. Katiepolt Dick C. Jones Jon Lutz Charles D. Barnhill Larry G. Wright Thomas W. Schaefer John C. Rosenstock Steven E. Bishop Roger G. Mazanec Edward Jay Dietz Steve v. Brew Lavern L. Brown Donald Masek Donald Rosekrans Robert H. Hall Jack A. Reighard Roger E. Rohrbouck James Moritz Harold Jones v. United Transportation Union Burlington Northern Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amici Curiae
See EEOC v. Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d 503 , 509 (10th Cir.1988) (" '[The ADEA] does not place an affirmative duty upon an employer to accord special treatment to members of the protected age group.' " (citations omitted)). 5 We likewise cannot conclude that the absence of narrowly targeted preferences strips an otherwise bona fide seniority system of its legitimacy.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hiatt v. Union Pacific Railroad
See EEOC v. Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d 503 , 509 (10th Cir.1988) (“ ‘[The ADEA] does not place an affirmative duty upon an employer to accord special treatment to members of the protected age group.’” (citations omitted)). 5 We likewise cannot conclude that the absence of narrowly targeted preferences strips an otherwise bona fide seniority system of its legitimacy.
examined
Cited "see"
Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc.
(3×)
See E.E.O.C. v. Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d 503 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nnn Durham Office Portfolio 1, LLC v. Highwoods Realty Ltd. P'ship
See, e.g., Hocking v. Dubois, 839 F.2d 560, 564 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Generally, simple transactions in real estate, without more, do not satisfy the Howey criteria”), en banc reh’g granted by 852 F.2d 503 (9th Cir. 1988); Woodward v. Terracor, 574 F.2d 1023, 1025 (10th Cir. 1978) (finding defendant did not sell a security because it was “under no contractual obligation to the plaintiffs other than to deliver title . . . .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hiatt v. Union Pacific Railroad
Moreover, this view is entirely consistent with the position adopted by the Tenth Circuit, which has held that “[t]he framework for assessing evidence in an age discrimination case parallels that applicable in a Title VII case.” Spulak v. K Mart Corp., 894 F.2d 1150, 1153 (10th Cir.1990) (disparate treatment claim under the ADEA); see also E.E.O.C. v. Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d 503 , 507 (10th Cir.1988) (“Courts regularly adapt the framework developed in Title VII cases ... to individual disparate treatment claims under ADEA”) (citation omitted); Merrick v. Northern Natural Gas Co., 911 F.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Whitten v. Farmland Industries, Inc.
See, e.g., E.E.O.C. v. Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d 503 , 507 (10th Cir.1988); Halsell v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 683 F.2d 285, 289 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1205 , 103 S.Ct. 1194 , 75 L.Ed.2d 438 (1983). 4 A disparate treatment claim under the ADEA may proceed in the following manner: The plaintiff first has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of employment discrimination under [the] standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Berry v. City Of Muskogee
See, e.g., EEOC v. Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d 503 , 507 (10th Cir.1988); Hurd v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 734 F.2d 495, 499 (10th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Berry v. City of Muskogee
See, e.g., EEOC v. Sperry Corp., 852 F.2d 503 , 507 (10th Cir.1988); Hurd v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 734 F.2d 495, 499 (10th Cir.1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,980 Gerald M. Hocking
v.
Maylee Dubois and Vitousek & Dick Realtors, Inc., a Hawaii Corporation
v.
Maylee Dubois and Vitousek & Dick Realtors, Inc., a Hawaii Corporation
85-1932.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 1, 1988.
852 F.2d 503
Published
Citer courts: Tenth Circuit (1)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,980
Gerald M. HOCKING, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Maylee DUBOIS and Vitousek & Dick Realtors, Inc., a Hawaii
corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 85-1932.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 1, 1988.
Prior report: 839 F.2d 560.
Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, BROWNING, WALLACE, HUG, TANG, SCHROEDER, FLETCHER, FARRIS, PREGERSON, ALARCON, POOLE, NELSON, CANBY, NORRIS, REINHARDT, BEEZER, HALL, WIGGINS, BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI, NOONAN, THOMPSON, O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
1
Upon the vote of a majority of the nonrecused active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.