Case Citator › Rachid v. Jack In The Box Inc

Rachid v. Jack In The Box Inc

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
376 F.3d 305
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
28 of 28
Citing cases (total)
28
Treatment dates
2005–2009
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Rachid v. Jack In The Box Inc was abrogated on its ADEA mixed-motives rule after all 28 flagged citations were read. The Supreme Court held in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. that age must be a but-for cause and that the burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer in an ADEA case.
More on how this was screened

The Fifth Circuit later described Rachid as overruled on that ground in Etienne v. Spanish Lake Truck & Casino Plaza, LLC. Rachid's discussion of the initial age-discrimination showing and the disputed facts in its own case was not displaced by Gross. The two confirmed adverse treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

28 later cases cite Rachid v. Jack In The Box Inc; 28 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Rachid v. Jack In The Box Inc?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected Rachid's ADEA mixed-motives rule and required proof that age was a but-for cause without shifting the burden of persuasion to the employer.

    Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Our inquiry therefore must focus on the text of the ADEA to decide whether it authorizes a mixed-motives age discrimination claim. It does not. ... The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • A district court in the Eighth Circuit declined to use Rachid's reading of Desert Palace for ADEA summary judgment claims because controlling circuit precedent took a different approach.

    Van Arkel v. Warren County · Southern District of Iowa · filed

    In Griffith, the Eighth Circuit concluded the decision in Desert Palace, 123 S.Ct. at 2148, "had no impact on prior Eighth Circuit summary judgment decisions." Griffith, 387 F.3d at 736. Therefore, any cases finding differently are inapposite and inapplicable. See, e.g., Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305, 311 (5th Cir.2004); Skomsky v. Speedway SuperAmerica, L.L.C., 267 F.Supp.2d 995, 998-1000 (D.Minn.2003).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Rachid v. Jack In The Box Inc and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace