Case Citator › Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals

Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals

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

Abrogated
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
29 F.3d 1078
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
139 of 139
Citing cases (total)
556
Treatment dates
2009
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. All 139 flagged citations for Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals have been read, with one confirmed treatment listed below. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. abrogated Manzer's ADEA rule shifting the burden of persuasion to the employer upon direct evidence of age discrimination.
More on how this was screened

The other reviewed opinions continued to apply Manzer's three interrelated pretext showings, treating them as convenient and non-rigid ways to organize evidence. Their adverse history parentheticals consistently reported Gross's already-listed treatment—often through Geiger v. Tower Automotive—or treatment of another authority.

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.

556 later cases cite Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals; 139 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 Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals?

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 abrogated Manzer's rule shifting the burden of persuasion to the employer when an ADEA plaintiff presents direct evidence of age discrimination.

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

    We hold that a plaintiff bringing a disparate-treatment. claim pursuant to the ADEA must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the “but-for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals 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