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 4 cases, quoted by 27 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 Paula A. Kipp, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, Appellant/cross-Appellee.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Paula A. Kipp, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, Appellant/cross-Appellee Anchor | green | “retaliatory motive played a part in the adverse employment action.” | 9 |
| 2 | Wedow v. City Of Kansas City | green | “an adverse employment action is a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material employment disadvantage.” | 7 |
| 3 | Wallace v. Dtg Operations, Inc. | green | “an inference of a causal connection between protected conduct and an adverse employment action can be drawn from the timing of the two events, but in general more than a temporal connection is required to present a genuine factual issue on retaliation.” | 6 |
| 4 | Sonya Haas v. Kelly Services, Inc. | green | “generally, more than a temporal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action is required to present a genuine factual issue on retaliation,” | 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.