Case Citator › Loretta Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.

Loretta Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.

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

Abrogated
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
376 F.3d 1079
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
43 of 43
Citing cases (total)
43
Treatment dates
2006–2019
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Loretta Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc. has been abrogated on two parts of its employment-discrimination analysis. Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. rejected its “jump off the page and slap you in the face” formulation for proving pretext through superior qualifications.
More on how this was screened

The en banc Eleventh Circuit in Jacqueline Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia replaced its “nearly identical” comparator standard with a requirement of similarity in all material respects. Williams v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Georgia and Hester v. University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital later identify these changes as treatment of Wilson. All 43 flagged citations have been read; the two changes are listed below. Later courts continue to cite other parts of Wilson.

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.

43 later cases cite Loretta Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.; 43 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 Loretta Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, 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 the “jump off the page and slap you in the face” test that Wilson used to assess whether superior qualifications show pretext.

    Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The visual image of words jumping off the page to slap you (presumably a court) in the face is unhelpful and imprecise as an elaboration of the standard for inferring pretext from superior qualifications. ... It suffices to say here that some formulation other than the test the Court of Appeals articulated in this case would better ensure that trial courts reach consistent results.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The en banc Eleventh Circuit replaced Wilson's “nearly identical” comparator standard with a requirement that comparators be similarly situated in all material respects.

    Jacqueline Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia · Eleventh Circuit (en banc) · filed

    And we are not willing to take the risk that the nearly-identical test is causing courts reflexively to dismiss potentially valid antidiscrimination cases. ... For reasons explained below, we hold that a plaintiff proceeding under McDonnell Douglas must show that she and her comparators are “similarly situated in all material respects.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Loretta Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, 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