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.
8 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 26 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 Cynthia J. Fisher, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Vassar College, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cynthia J. Fisher, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Vassar College, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee Anchor | green | “the sufficiency of the finding of pretext to support a finding of discrimination depends on the circumstances of the case.” | 5 |
| 2 | Udo U. UDO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Henry TOMES, Commissioner for the Department of Mental Health, Defendant, Appellee | green | “must introduce sufficient evidence to support two findings: (1) that the employer's articulated reason for laying off the plaintiff is a pretext, and (2) that the true reason is discriminatory.” | 3 |
| 3 | Udo U. UDO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Henry TOMES, Commissioner for the Department of Mental Health, Defendant, Appellee | green | “the employer's articulated reason for laying off the plaintiff is a pretext” | 3 |
| 4 | Lori-Ann MOLLOY, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Wesley BLANCHARD, Etc., Et Al., Defendants, Appellants | green | “the test is whether a prudent person, looking objectively at the incidents, would think them roughly equivalent.” | 3 |
| 5 | John J. Lennon v. Robert Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury | green | “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law,” | 3 |
| 6 | Mulero-Rodriguez v. Ponte, Inc. | green | “reflects the existence of differences of opinion between mulero and others at the company with respect to a wide variety of issues affecting the company.” | 3 |
| 7 | Thomas v. Eastman Kodak Co. | green | “a personality conflict between flannery and plaintiff,” | 3 |
| 8 | Thomas v. Eastman Kodak Co. | green | “looked for guidance elsewhere.” | 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.