Case Citator › Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc.

Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc.

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

Abrogated
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
82 F.3d 651
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
37 of 37
Citing cases (total)
37
Treatment dates
2000
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc. has been abrogated in part: all 37 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. rejected the restrictive handling of age-related remarks that the Fifth Circuit had drawn from Brown.
More on how this was screened

The Fifth Circuit identified that effect on Brown's test in Russell v. McKinney Hospital Venture. Brown's test for remarks offered as direct evidence and its same actor inference continue to be cited and applied.

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.

37 later cases cite Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc.; 37 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 Brown v. CSC Logic, 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 Fifth Circuit's use of Brown's restrictive remarks test to discount circumstantial evidence of age discrimination merely because comments were outside the direct context of termination.

    Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In holding that the record contained insufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict, the Court of Appeals misapplied the standard of review dictated by Rule 50. Again, the court disregarded critical evidence favorable to petitioner — - namely, the evidence supporting petitioner’s prima facie case and undermining respondent’s nondiscriminatory explanation. See 197 F. 3d, at 693-694. The court also failed to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of petitioner. For instance, while acknowledging “the potentially damning nature” of Chesnut’s age-related comments, the court discounted them on the ground that they “were not made in the direct context of Reeves’s termination.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Brown v. CSC Logic, 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