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.
10 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 147 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 Carmella M. Pinto v. Allstate Insurance Company.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carmella M. Pinto v. Allstate Insurance Company Anchor | green | “whether, after resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party, a rational juror could find in favor of that party.” | 44 |
| 2 | Hyek v. Field Support Services, Inc. | green | “is not a particularly steep hurdle.” | 22 |
| 3 | Henry v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | green | “a plaintiff need only show that the defendant was in fact motivated at least in part by the prohibited discriminatory animus.” | 17 |
| 4 | Gorzynski v. Jetblue Airways Corp. | green | “a plaintiff can indirectly establish a causal connection to support a discrimination or retaliation claim by showing that the protected activity was closely followed in time by the adverse employment action.” | 16 |
| 5 | Bronzini v. Classic Security, L.L.C. | green | “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” | 15 |
| 6 | Howard v. MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad | green | “is a 'flexible standard that can be satisfied differently in differing factual scenarios.” | 14 |
| 7 | Carmella M. Pinto v. Allstate Insurance Company | green | “after resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party, a rational juror could find in favor of that party.” | 7 |
| 8 | United States v. City of New York | green | “if the employer is able to satisfy that burden, the inquiry then returns to the plaintiff, to demonstrate that the proffered reason is a pretext for discrimination.” | 6 |
| 9 | Taddeo v. L.M. Berry and Co. | green | “wjhere an employer acted with discriminatory intent, direct evidence of that intent will only rarely be available, so affidavits and depositions must be carefully scrutinized for circumstantial proof which, if believed, would show discrimination.” | 3 |
| 10 | Howard v. MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad | green | “flexible standard that can be satisfied differently in differing factual scenarios” | 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.