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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 9 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 Robert P. PETITTI, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Robert P. PETITTI, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee Anchor | green | “second-guess the business decisions of an employer, nor to impose its subjective judgments of which person would best fulfill the responsibilities of a certain job.” | 5 |
| 2 | Ramírez Rodríguez v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | green | “it shall be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees ... because such individual ... has opposed any practice made unlawful by this section, or ... made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or …” | 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.