Case Citator › Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Management, Incorporated

Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Management, Incorporated

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

Abrogated
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
354 F.3d 277
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
111 of 112
Treatment dates
2009–2013
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Management, Incorporated has been abrogated in part: 111 of the 112 flagged citations were read, the text of the other one could not be retrieved, and the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. displaced Hill's mixed-motive rule for ADEA claims by requiring age to be the but-for cause of the challenged action.
More on how this was screened

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar likewise displaced Hill's less demanding causation rule for Title VII retaliation claims. The other reviewed opinions applied Hill's unaffected decisionmaker and proof rules or merely reported those Supreme Court acts in history parentheticals.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
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, except the ones whose text could not be retrieved.

112 citations to Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Management, Incorporated sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 111 of them have been read, and the text of 1 citing opinion could not be retrieved, so it remains unread. 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 Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Management, Incorporated?

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

  • Gross abrogated Hill's ADEA mixed-motive rule by requiring but-for causation.

    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. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • Nassar abrogated Hill's Title VII retaliation mixed-motive rule by requiring but-for causation.

    University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The text, structure, and history of Title VII demonstrate that a plaintiff making a retaliation claim under §2000e-3(a) must establish that his or her protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Management, Incorporated 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