green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
24.4 score
“uperior qualifications constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason....”
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pathak v. FedEx Trade Networks T & B Inc.
uperior qualifications constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason....
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shahin v. State of Delaware Department of Finance
See Stanziale v. Jargowsky, 200 F.3d 101, 107 (3d Cir.2000); Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 82 (10th Cir.1984). 2 Accordingly, the District Court *94 did not err in granting judgment to the defendants on this claim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holley v. North Carolina Department of Administration
Co., 60 F.3d 1126, 1130 (4th Cir.1995); Mallory v. Booth Refrigeration Supply Co., Inc., 882 F.2d 908, 909-11 (4th Cir. 1989); Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 82 (10th Cir.1984); cf. Causey v. Balog, 162 F.3d 795, 801 (4th Cir.1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Garrett v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 305 F.3d 1210, 1217-18 (10th Cir.2002)(eiting Simms, 165 F.3d at 1328 and ColonrSanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. New Mexico Dept.
(2×)
Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Voltz v. Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.
Therefore, while some subjective criteria may have been used, “the relevant abilities were articulated in guidelines with reasonable specificity.” Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 82 (10th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brooks v. Barnhart
See Anaeme v. Diagnostek, Inc., 164 F.3d 1275, 1279 (10th Cir.1999) (recognizing employer’s burden is “exceedingly light”); Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.1984) (concluding superior qualifications are legitimate, nondiseriminatory reason for failing to promote).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Terry N. Garrett v. Hewlett-Packard Company, a California Company Authorized to Do Business in the State of Colorado
More specifically, evidence of pretext may include, but is not limited to, the following: “prior treatment of plaintiff; the employer’s policy and practice regarding minority employment (including statistical data); disturbing procedural irregularities (e.g., falsifying or manipulating ... criteria); and the use of subjective criteria.” Simms, 165 F.3d at 1328 (citing Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.1984); and Beaird, 145 F.3d at 1165 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eilam v. Children's Hospital
Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Penske Transportation Services, Inc.
Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 82 (10th Cir.1984) (where job description at issue highlighted significant administrative and supervisory responsibilities, employer’s decision to hire candidate based on his administrative background raised no question of pretext).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeanne Roberts v. The State of Oklahoma, on Behalf of the Board of Regents of Oklahoma Colleges, a Body Corporate University of Central Oklahoma
Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Roberts v. State of Oklahoma
Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jouflas v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
The Tenth Circuit Court stated in Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406 (10th Cir.1987), “ ‘A finding of fact may be deemed “clearly erroneous” only if the finding is without factual support in the record ... or if the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Id. at 1414 (quoting Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 , 105 S.Ct. 181 , 83 L.Ed.2d 115 (1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trippet v. Envir0mint Holdings
Under this standard, the trial court's findings "will be deemed clearly erroneous only if [they are] without support in the record or if the appellate court 'on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.' " Doyle v. Resolution Trust Corp., 999 F.2d 469, 474 (10th Cir.1993) (quoting Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 (1984)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kreimeyer v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc.
Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 , 105 S.Ct. 181 , 83 L.Ed.2d 115 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Torre v. Federated Mutual Insurance
Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 , 105 S.Ct. 181 , 83 L.Ed.2d 115 (1984); Mohammed v. Callaway, 698 F.2d 395, 399 (10th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alvin Rea, Gordon Keepers, Robert Reynolds, Barbara Weightman, and Barbara Van Den Arend v. Martin Marietta Corporation
Finally, although disturbing procedural irregularities can be evidence of pretext, see Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 , 105 S.Ct. 181 , 83 L.Ed.2d 115 (1984), given the large number of layoffs, and the fact that Plaintiff is able to identify only one instance where Defendant selected an employee for layoff over lower-ranking employees, we conclude Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence to show a “deviation from the procedural norm sufficient to view [Defendant’s] reasons for [selecting Plaintiff for layoff] as pretextual.” See…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Iyo E. Nsikak v. Union Oil Company of California, Doing Business as Unocal and Unocal Oil & Gas Division, a Foreign Corporation
See Patterson, 491 U.S. at 187-88 ; McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 804-05 ; Drake, 927 F.2d at 1160 ; Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 (1984). 10 Plaintiff presented no evidence of Unocal's discriminatory motives or its minority employment history.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Doyle v. Resolution Trust Corp.
Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 , 105 S.Ct. 181 , 83 L.Ed.2d 115 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Doyle v. Resolution Trust Corporation
Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 , 105 S.Ct. 181 , 83 L.Ed.2d 115 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Purrington v. University of Utah
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 , 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511-12 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 , 105 S.Ct. 181 , 83 L.Ed.2d 115 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Purrington v. University Of Utah
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 , 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511-12 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 , 105 S.Ct. 181 , 83 L.Ed.2d 115 (1984). 38 Purrington asserts that her complaints concerning Adix' sexual harassment created to some significant degree the conflict and tension surrounding the WRC.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marguerite Hicks v. The Gates Rubber Company
(2×)
“A finding of fact may be deemed ‘clearly erroneous’ only if the finding is without factual support in the record ... or if the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 , 105 S.Ct. 181 , 83 L.Ed.2d 115 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cowles v. Dow Keith Oil & Gas, Inc.
Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 80-81 (10th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
R.S. Cowles v. Dow Keith Oil & Gas, Inc.
Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 80-81 (10th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ware v. Mercy Health
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Ex. 9 (Dkt. 47-9). 45 An employer’s past treatment of an employee can be evidence of pretext for later adverse action, Colon-Sanchez, 733 F.2d at 81 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Simms v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Services
(2×)
See Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.1984); see also Beaird, 145 F.3d at 1168 .
cited
Cited "see"
Warren Dill v. Bernhardt Industries, a North Carolina Corporation
See Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 946 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Bocage v. Litton Systems, Inc.
See Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir.) cert. denied 469 U.S. 855 , 105 S.Ct. 181 , 83 L.Ed.2d 115 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Frank LUJAN, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Harry N. WALTERS, Administrator of the Veterans Administration, Defendant-Appellee
(2×)
See Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 , 105 S.Ct. 181 , 83 L.Ed.2d 115 (1984); Verniero v. Air Force Academy Sch.
cited
Cited "see"
Edmund v. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Accord Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 80-81 (10th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Bird v. West Valley City
See, e.g., Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 81 (10th Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ham v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
(2×)
Corp., 17 F.3d 1104 , 1110 (8th Cir. 1994) (discharged employee discredited employer’s statement that it retained another employee because of his superior computer skills because, among other things, the need for computer skills was not mentioned in the retained employee’s job description); see also Colon-Sanchez v. Marsh, 733 F.2d 78, 82 (10th Cir.1984) (employer’s decision to hire nonminority candidate because of his superior administrative skills was not pretextual where the job description demonstrated that administrative skills were pertinent to the position).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Simmons v. Marsh
Finally, plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that black females are discriminated against at the Institute fails to raise an inference of discrimination. 24 Plaintiff has not presented any data as to the number of black females in the relevant labor market who were qualified for a position in the Creative Heraldry Division, much less any data bearing on the number of eligible black female applicants or the number of vacancies which have occurred in the Creative Heraldry Division during the relevant time period. 25 Hazelwood School Dist. v. *1494 United States, 433 U.S. 299 , 308 & n. 13, 97 S.…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ARIZONA AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
v.
ARIZONA AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
80-5777.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 8, 1984.
Ellen J. Eggers, Keene, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants., Neil Vincent Wake, Beus, Gilbert, Wake & Morrill, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendantsappellees.
Ferguson, Nelson, Reinhardt.
Published
Citer courts: D. Colorado (1)
ORDER
The court sitting en banc has affirmed the judgment of the district court that the Arizona Agricultural Employment Relations Act is facially constitutional, 727 F.2d 1475.
The court did not determine whether the Act is constitutional as applied in any specific instance.
The case is remanded to the district court with directions to permit the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to raise any issues not determined by the March 14, 1984 decision of the court sitting en banc.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED for further proceedings.