4 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 15 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 Zaderaka v. Illinois Human Rights Commission.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Zaderaka v. Illinois Human Rights Commission Anchor | green | “must articulate, not prove , a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision.” | 4 |
| 2 | Zaderaka v. Illinois Human Rights Commission | green | “must then prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer's articulated reason was not its true reason, but was instead a pretext for unlawful discrimination.” | 4 |
| 3 | Young v. Illinois Human Rights Commission | green | “contravenes legislative intent, fails to consider a critical aspect of the matter, or offers an explanation so implausible that it cannot be regarded as the result of an exercise of the agency's expertise.” | 4 |
| 4 | Zaderaka v. Illinois Human Rights Commission | green | “a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision.” | 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.