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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 12 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 In Re Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Employment Litigation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Employment Litigation Anchor | green | “rejected any notion that the memorialization of a voluntary undertaking in the form of a consent decree somehow provides the employer with extra protection against charges of illegal discrimination.” | 4 |
| 2 | Wu v. Thomas | green | “a prospective promotion is not a property or liberty interest protected by the fourteenth amendment” | 4 |
| 3 | Peter L. Knight, Dennis L. Wall, Michael D. Mulkey v. Columbus, Georgia | green | “exempt executive or administrative employees” | 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.