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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 32 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 Stanley Johnson v. The Kroger Company.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stanley Johnson v. The Kroger Company Anchor | green | “consistent with this definition, direct evidence of discrimination does not require a factfinder to draw any inferences in order to conclude that the challenged employment action was motivated at least in part by prejudice against members of the protected group.” | 15 |
| 2 | Stanley Johnson v. The Kroger Company | green | “direct evidence of discrimination does not require a factfinder to draw any inferences in order to conclude that the challenged employment action was motivated at least in part by prejudice against members of the protected group.” | 9 |
| 3 | Suzanne D. Kocak v. Community Health Partners of Ohio, Inc. | green | “whatever the strength of the evidence, it is not 'direct' evidence if it admits more than one plausible interpretation, and requires a significant inference or presumption on the part of the trier of fact.” | 4 |
| 4 | Erwin v. Potter | green | “direct evidence of discrimination is rare because employers generally do not announce that they are acting on prohibited grounds.” | 4 |
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.