12 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Beverly BAUER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALBEMARLE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appelleegreen2 sentences2009See also Bauer v. Albemarle Corp. , 169 F.3d 962, 966 (5th Cir. 1999) (requiring plaintiff in ADEA case to establish prima facie case of discrimination as described in McDonnell Douglas ). 6. 2001Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473, 477 (Tex.2001) (TCHRA claim); Bauer v. Albemarle Corp., 169 F.3d 962, 966 (5th Cir.1999) (ADEA claim). | 3 | 3 |
William MULLIN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY, Defendant, Appelleegreen2 sentences2004The Fifth Circuit reasoned that, if the ADEA exception is not understood to preclude disparate-impact liability, “it becomes nothing more than a bromide to the effect that ‘only age discrimination is age discrimination.’ ” Id. at 190 (quoting Mullin, 164 F.3d at 702 ). 2004The Fifth Circuit reasoned that, if the ADEA exception is not understood to preclude disparate-impact liability, “it becomes nothing more than a bromide to the effect that ‘only age discrimination is age discrimination.’ ” Id. at 190 (quoting Mullin, 164 F.3d at 702 ). | 3 | 3 |
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.green2 sentences2009However, because the Supreme Court has never determined that the components of a prima facie case of discrimination as described in McDonnell Douglas are not applicable to an ADEA claim and has previously assumed without deciding that the McDonnell Douglas framework is applicable, see, e.g. , Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods. , 530 U.S. 133, 142 (2000), we will apply it here. 2009However, because the Supreme Court has never determined that the components of a prima facie case of discrimination as described in McDonnell Douglas are not applicable to an ADEA claim and has previously assumed without deciding that the McDonnell Douglas framework is applicable, see, e.g. , Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods. , 530 U.S. 133, 142 (2000), we will apply it here. | 2 | 2 |
Alden v. Mainegreen2 sentences2007Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 712 (1999). 2007Alden v. Maine , 527 U.S. 706, 712 (1999). | 2 | 2 |
Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc.green2 sentences2000Entergy Operations , Inc ., 522 U.S. 422 , 427 (1998) ("An employee `may not waive' an ADEA claim unless the employer complies with the statute."). 2000Entergy Operations , Inc ., 522 U.S. 422 , 427 (1998) ("An employee `may not waive' an ADEA claim unless the employer complies with the statute."). | 2 | 2 |
Sullivan v. University of Texas Health Science Centergreen1 sentence2025Ctr. at Houston Dental Branch, 217 F. App’x 391, 395 (5th Cir.2007) (holding that medical center had sovereign immunity from an age discrimination claim); Univ. of Tex. at Dallas v. Matney, 280 S.W.3d 882, 885 (Tex.App.– Dallas 2009 , no pet.) (holding that plaintiff’s ADEA claim barred by sovereign immunity); Tex. A&M AgriLife Ext. | 1 | 1 |
University of Texas at Dallas v. Matneygreen1 sentence2025Ctr. at Houston Dental Branch, 217 F. App’x 391, 395 (5th Cir.2007) (holding that medical center had sovereign immunity from an age discrimination claim); Univ. of Tex. at Dallas v. Matney, 280 S.W.3d 882, 885 (Tex.App.– Dallas 2009 , no pet.) (holding that plaintiff’s ADEA claim barred by sovereign immunity); Tex. A&M AgriLife Ext. | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen1 sentence2023See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 . | 1 | 1 |
William L. Clark v. Resistoflex Company, a Division of Unidynamics Corporation and Its Successor Crane Resistoflex Company, a Division of Crane Co.green1 sentence2007Clark v. Resistoflex Co., 854 F.2d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toenniesgreen1 sentence2001Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473, 477 (Tex.2001) (TCHRA claim); Bauer v. Albemarle Corp., 169 F.3d 962, 966 (5th Cir.1999) (ADEA claim). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wanda L. Adams v. Florida Power Corporation
green
2 sentences2004See Smith, at 191-192; Adams, 255 F.3d at 1325 n. 6. 2004See Smith, at 191-192; Adams, 255 F.3d at 1325 n. 6. | 3 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.