Case Citator › Laura Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc.

Laura Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc.

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

Abrogated
Court
Second Circuit
Citation
258 F.3d 62
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
123 of 123
Citing cases (total)
1,375
Treatment dates
2009
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Laura Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc. is abrogated in part. All 123 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. displaced Holtz's statement that age need only play a motivating role in an ADEA decision: an ADEA plaintiff must prove but-for causation. Holtz's other employment discrimination and procedural holdings survive. The confirmed treatment is 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.

1,375 later cases cite Laura Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc.; 123 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 Laura Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 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 displaced Holtz's ADEA motivating-role standard with a but-for causation requirement.

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

    To establish a disparate-treatment claim under the plain language of the ADEA, therefore, a plaintiff must prove that age was the “but-for” cause of the employer’s adverse decision.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Laura Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 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