8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 77 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 Rivera v. City & County of Denver.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rivera v. City & County of Denver Anchor | green | “the relevant inquiry is not whether the employer's proffered reasons were wise, fair or correct, but whether it honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those beliefs.” | 25 |
| 2 | Ofelia Randle v. City of Aurora | green | “the mere fact that an employer failed to follow its own internal procedures does not necessarily suggest that the employer was motivated by illegal discriminatory intent or that the substantive reasons given by the employer for its employment decision were pretextual.” | 13 |
| 3 | Kendrick v. Penske Transportation Services, Inc. | green | “a challenge of pretext requires us to look at the facts as they appear to the person making the decision to terminate plaintiff.” | 9 |
| 4 | Young v. Dillon Companies, Inc. | green | “the reason for this rule is plain: our role is to prevent intentional discriminatory hiring practices, not to act as a 'super personnel department,' second guessing employers' honestly held (even if erroneous) business judgments.” | 9 |
| 5 | Miller v. EBY Realty Group LLC | green | “pretext exists when an employer does not honestly represent its reasons for terminating an employee.” | 8 |
| 6 | Rivera v. City & County of Denver | green | “honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those beliefs.” | 5 |
| 7 | Watts v. City of Norman | green | “in determining whether the proffered reason for a decision was pretextual, we examine the facts as they appear to the person making the decision.” | 4 |
| 8 | Burke v. Utah Transit Authority & Local 382 | green | “in applying this standard, we view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” | 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.