Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 37 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Terry L. Ambrose v. Township of Robinson, Pennsylvania.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Terry L. Ambrose v. Township of Robinson, Pennsylvania Anchor | green | “it is only intuitive that for protected conduct to be a substantial or motiving factor in a decision, the decisionmakers must be aware of the protected conduct.” | 22 |
| 2 | Sally J. Shellenberger v. Summit Bancorp, Inc | green | “(1) a protected employee activity; (2) an adverse action by the employer either after or contemporaneous with the employee's protected activity; and (3) a causal connection between the employee's protected activity and the employer's adverse action.” | 4 |
| 3 | Gairloch v. Pennsylvania State University | green | “the court measures temporal proximity from the date on which the litigant engaged in his first protected action.” | 4 |
| 4 | Straka v. Comcast Cable | green | “consider all of the proffered evidence as a whole to determine whether it may suffice to raise the inference” | 4 |
| 5 | Kier v. F. Lackland & Sons, LLC | green | “absent some intervening antagonism, plaintiff cannot rest solely on a temporal proximity of more than one week.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.