green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 19×
90.1 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hickles
as courts are not free to second guess an employer's business judgment, this assertion is insufficient to permit a finding of pretext.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Strunk v. Airxcel, Inc. : Case Consolidated for Discovery All Non-Dispositive filings to be made in Lead Case 20-cv-1362
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
it is the perception of the decision maker which is relevant, not plaintiff's perception of herself.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Stroup v. United Airlines
as courts are not free to second-guess an employer's business judgment, this assertion is insufficient to support a finding of pretext.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Debroux v. McCarthy
it is the perception of the decision maker which is relevant.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Crocker v. Dixie Applied Technology College
ere conjecture that employer's explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination is an insufficient basis for denial of summary judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sidlo v. MillerCoors
ere conjecture that employer's explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination is an insufficient basis for denial of summary judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Bullington v. United Air Lines, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
he plaintiffs' mere conjecture that their employer's explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination is an insufficient basis for denial of summary judgment.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Eilam v. Children's Hospital
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
lantiffs' mere conjecture that their employer's explanation is a pretext ... is an insufficient basis for denial of summary judgment.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Leflore v. Flint Industries
evidence that an employer fired qualified older employees but retained younger ones in similar positions is sufficient to create a rebuttable presumption of discriminatory intent and to require the employer to articulate reasons for its decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Jacobs v. Delta Air Lines
laintiffs' mere conjecture that their employer's explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination is an insufficient basis for denial of summary judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ingram v. Lucent Technologies
laintiffs' mere conjecture that their employer's explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination is an insufficient basis for denial of summary judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Birge v. Department of Health
as courts are not free to second-guess an employer's business judgment, this assertion is insufficient to support a finding of pretext.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Paulsboe v. Farnam Companies
as courts are not free to second-guess an employer's business judgment, this assertion is insufficient to support a finding of pretext.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ning v. Oklahoma Dept. Envt.
as courts are not free to second-guess an employer's business judgment, this assertion is insufficient to support a finding of pretext.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Roberts v. State of Oklahoma
ere conjecture that employer's explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination is an insufficient basis for denial of summary judgment.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
James A. Baker v. Ogden Services Corp. Ogden Plant Maintenance Co., Inc.
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
while reduction-in-force cases present exigencies not present in other employment discrimination cases, these exigencies are best analyzed at the stage where the employer puts on evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Edward F. Wolenski v. Manville Corporation
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
as courts are not free to second guess an employer's business judgment, this assertion is insufficient to permit a finding of pretext.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lucas v. Dover Corp.
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
as courts are not free to second-guess an employer's business judgment, this assertion is insufficient to support a finding of pretext.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
ca10 1988
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
while reduction-in-force cases present exigencies not present in other employment discrimination cases, these exigencies are best analyzed at the stage where the employer puts on evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tatarunas v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
Mar. 9, 2000), quoting Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 772 (10th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harrison v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Inc.
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thigpen v. Anderson
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson., 853 F.2d at 771-72 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lu v. Univ. of Dayton
However, “plaintiffs’ mere conjecture that their employer's explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination is an insufficient basis for denial of summary judgment.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 772 (10th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Briggs v. University Of New Mexico
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, The
Co., 45 F.4th 1202, 1216 (10th Cir. 2022) (quoting Bekkem v. Wilkie, 915 F.3d 1258, 1267 (10th Cir. 2019)). 28 Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997) (brackets omitted) (quoting Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 772 (10th Cir. 1988)). 29 See Paup v. Gear Prods., Inc., 327 F. App’x 100, 111 (10th Cir. 2009) (finding that a document prepared by the defendant employer in response to litigation “could surely cause a reasonable factfinder to view it with a degree of skepticism.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dove v. Lakewood
Mar. 9, 2000), quoting Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 772 (10th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Porter v. Trans States Airlines, LLC
And “[m]ere conjecture that [the] employer’s explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination is an insufficient basis for denial of summary judgment.” Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 772 (10th Cir. 1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harrison v. Wellpath, LLC
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ramirez v. New Mexico Department of Corrections
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America v. RNS Auto Services, LLC
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bell v. Judge Memorial Catholic High School
LEXIS 179390 , at *6 (collecting cases). a RIF, the Tenth Circuit has further modified the fourth element to account for the difficulty a plaintiff faces “proving actual replacement by a younger employee.”77 In these cases, the fourth element may be established “through circumstantial evidence that the plaintiff was treated less favorably than younger employees during the [RIF].”78 Defendants do not dispute the first three elements of Bell’s prima facie case, at least for summary judgment purposes.79 Indeed, the uncontested record generally shows Bell was a member of the protected ag…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Volking v. Airxcel, Inc.
Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 772 (10th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted); see also Fallis v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 944 F.2d 743, 747 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that “plaintiff cannot prevail by merely challenging in general terms the accuracy of a performance evaluation which the employer relied on in making an employment decision without any additional evidence (over and above that of the prima facie case)” (citations omitted)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bostick v. Salvation Army
Cuyahoga No. 75249, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 914 , 25 (Mar. 9, 2000), quoting Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 772 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holsome v. Tek-Expert (Colorado) Inc
To state a plausible claim of age discrimination under the ADEA, Mr. Holsome must, at a minimum, show that he “was (1) within the protected age group; (2) doing satisfactory work (qualified for the position); (3) discharged (or adversely affected by defendant’s employment decision); and (4) replaced by a younger person.” Jones v. Unisys Corp., 54 F.3d 624, 630 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 770 (10th Cir. 1988); EEOC v. Sperry, 852 F.2d 503 , 507 (10th Cir. 1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mitchell v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
But “mere conjecture . . . is an insufficient basis for denial of summary judgment.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 772 (10th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Armstrong v. Ennis Business Forms of Kansas, Inc.
Plaintiff can satisfy the fourth element with evidence that her “employer fired qualified older employees but retained younger ones in similar positions.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771 (10th Cir. 1988).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Fullington v. Illinois Tool Works Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
In reduction in force cases, the plaintiff often is “simply laid off and thus incapable of proving actual replacement by a younger employee.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771 (10th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Potter v. Torres
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Berry v. Airxcel, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In reduction in force cases, however, a plaintiff “is simply laid off and thus incapable of proving actual replacement by a younger employee.” Branson, 853 F.2d at 771.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fresquez v. White
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Martinez
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bhasker v. Kemper Casualty Insurance Company
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Serna v. Cooksey
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fresquez v. White
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Upchurch v. Wastequip, LLC
See Faulkner v. Super Value Stores, Inc., 3 F.3d 1419 , 1427 (10th Cir. 1993); Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 770 (10th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clark v. DHL Supply Chain
Astrospace, 101 F.3d 947 , 951–52 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 765 (3d Cir. 1994) (further citation omitted)). “[M]ere conjecture that [the] employer’s explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination is an insufficient basis for denial of summary judgment.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 772 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martinez v. Continental Tire The Americas, LLC
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shafi v. Colorado Department of Corrections
Pretext To show pretext, a party may point to “weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its actions [such] that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence and hence infer that the employer did not act for the asserted non-discriminatory reasons.” Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). “[M]ere conjecture that [the] employer’s explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination is an insufficient basis for denial of summary …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Boughton v. U.S. Bank National Association
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hylton v. Board of County Commissioners for the County of Dona Ana
To avoid summary judgment, a party “must produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
United States
v.
Sol C. Schwartz, Abe Chapman, and Frank C. Marolda
v.
Sol C. Schwartz, Abe Chapman, and Frank C. Marolda
88-1252.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 31, 1988.
853 F.2d 768
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Sol C. SCHWARTZ, Abe Chapman, and Frank C. Marolda,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 88-1252.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 12, 1988.
Decided Aug. 12, 1988.
As Amended Aug. 31, 1988.
[*~768]1
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; William H. Orrick, Jr., Presiding.
2
Prior reports: 679 F.Supp. 972; 785 F.2d 673.
[*~770]4
The order of the district court is reversed, and the stay heretofore ordered by this court is vacated. The mandate will issue at once. See United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir.1985).
[*~771]5
An opinion will follow.
*
The Honorable Harry L. Hupp, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation