5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 58 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 Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki Anchor | green | “documents filed by an employee with the eeoc should be construed, to the extent consistent with permissible rules of interpretation, to protect the employee's rights and statutory remedies.” | 24 |
| 2 | Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki | green | “reasonably construed as a request for the agency to take remedial action to protect the employee's rights or otherwise settle a dispute between the employer and the employee.” | 18 |
| 3 | Pacheco v. Mineta | green | “engage in fact-intensive analysis of the statement given by the plaintiff in the administrative charge, and look slightly beyond its four corners, to its substance rather than its label.” | 8 |
| 4 | McIntyre v. Ramirez | green | “with no supporting facts or rationale” | 5 |
| 5 | Bartosh v. Sam Houston State University | green | “construe employment discrimination charges with the 'utmost liberality,' bearing in mind that such charges are generally prepared by laypersons untutored in the rules of pleading, though requiring that the charge contain an adequate factual basis so that it puts the employer on …” | 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.