Case Citator › Tomassi v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc.

Tomassi v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc.

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

Abrogated
Court
Second Circuit
Citation
478 F.3d 111
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
54 of 54
Citing cases (total)
54
Treatment dates
2009
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Tomassi v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc. is abrogated on its ADEA causation standard. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. requires proof that age was the but-for cause of an adverse employment decision, displacing Tomassi's statement that age discrimination need only motivate the decision at least in part.
More on how this was screened

Later citing courts expressly describe Gross as abrogating Tomassi on other grounds. Tomassi's separate rule requiring courts to weigh allegedly discriminatory remarks in context continues to be applied. All 54 flagged citations have been read; the one confirmed adverse 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.

54 later cases cite Tomassi v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc.; 54 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 Tomassi v. Insignia Financial Group, 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 Tomassi's ADEA statement that age discrimination need only motivate an adverse decision in part, requiring proof that age was its but-for cause.

    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 Tomassi v. Insignia Financial Group, 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