Case Citator › Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

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

Overruled in part
Court
First Circuit
Citation
896 F.2d 5
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
28 of 28
Citing cases (total)
28
Treatment dates
1993
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. has been overruled in part.
More on how this was screened

All 28 flagged citations have been read. The one confirmed treatment listed below displaces a categorical demand for evidence of discriminatory animus separate from a prima facie case and evidence that the employer's explanation was false. Its general summary judgment principles continue to be cited.

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 Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; 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 Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court held that disbelief of an employer's explanation, together with a prima facie case, can support an inference of discrimination without separate additional proof.

    St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The factfinder’s disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may, together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination. Thus, rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination,4 and the Court of Appeals was correct when it noted that, upon such rejection, “[n]o additional proof of discrimination is required,” 970 P. 2d, at 493 (emphasis added).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 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