Case Citator › Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp.

Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp.

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

Abrogated
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
759 F.2d 355
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
127 of 127
Citing cases (total)
754
Treatment dates
1989
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp. has been abrogated in part: all 127 flagged citations have been read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins displaced Ross's rule placing the ultimate burden on a mixed-motive Title VII plaintiff to prove that retaliation was the but-for cause of the adverse action.
More on how this was screened

Later courts repeatedly reported that history while continuing to apply Ross's unaffected retaliation elements, employer-knowledge requirement, reasonable-belief rule, and summary-judgment principles. Other nearby adverse language disposed of issues or treated unrelated authorities.

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.

754 later cases cite Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp.; 127 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 Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp.?

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 displaced Ross's but-for rule for mixed-motive Title VII cases, shifting to the employer the burden to prove it would have made the same decision without the unlawful motive.

    Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We have, in short, been here before. Each time, we have concluded that the plaintiff who shows that an impermissible motive played a motivating part in an adverse employment decision has thereby placed upon the defendant the burden to show that it would have made the same decision in the absence of the unlawful motive. Our decision today treads this well-worn path.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp. 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