3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 35 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 Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. Anchor | green | “as a general rule, a title vii plaintiff cannot bring claims in a lawsuit that were not included in his eeoc charge.” | 16 |
| 2 | Hazel M. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SODEXHO, CUMBERLAND COLLEGE CAFETERIA, Defendant-Appellee | green | “when facts related with respect to the charged claim would prompt the eeoc to investigate a different, uncharged claim, the plaintiff is not precluded from bringing suit on that claim.” | 14 |
| 3 | Scott v. Eastman Chemical Co. | green | “the plaintiff failed to exhaust her hostile environment claim, as she offered no evidence that the eeoc actually investigated this claim or that such claims could reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge.” | 5 |
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.