5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 52 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 Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White Anchor | green | “he antiretaliation provision, unlike the substantive provision, is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment.” | 20 |
| 2 | Carolyn Sydnor v. Fairfax County, Virginia | green | “he exhaustion requirement should not become a tripwire for hapless plaintiffs.” | 18 |
| 3 | Constantine v. Rectors and Visitors of George Mason University | green | “in order to establish this causal connection, a plaintiff in a retaliation case must show, at the very least, that the defendant was aware of her engaging in protected activity.” | 7 |
| 4 | Aaron C. James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Incorporated | green | “ere 'dissatisfaction with work assignments, a feeling of being unfairly criticized, or difficult or unpleasant working conditions are not so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign.” | 4 |
| 5 | Constantine v. Rectors and Visitors of George Mason University | green | “plaintiff in a retaliation case must show, at the very least, that the defendant was aware of her engaging in protected activity.” | 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.