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.
4 canonical passages across 3 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 Francisco Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, Erroneously Sued as Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Francisco Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, Erroneously Sued as Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Anchor | green | “individuals are similarly situated when they have similar jobs and display similar conduct.” | 30 |
| 2 | Richard D. Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., a Corporation | green | “(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he experienced an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably, or other circumstances surrounding the adverse employm…” | 12 |
| 3 | Francisco Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, Erroneously Sued as Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors | green | “have similar jobs and display similar conduct.” | 7 |
| 4 | Matthew Head v. Glacier Northwest, Incorporated, a Washington Corporation | green | “the ada causation standard is a motivating factor standard.” | 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.