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.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 49 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 Gloria S. Carter v. Chrysler Corporation United Auto Workers, Local 110.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gloria S. Carter v. Chrysler Corporation United Auto Workers, Local 110 Anchor | green | “all instances of harassment need not be stamped with signs of overt discrimination to be relevant under title vii if they are part of a course of conduct which is tied to evidence of discriminatory animus.” | 17 |
| 2 | Mechele Vinson v. Sidney L. Taylor | green | “even a woman who was never herself the object of harassment might have a title vii claim if she were forced to work in an atmosphere in which such harassment was pervasive.” | 10 |
| 3 | Mary D. Austin v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company Jerry Jones | green | “sufficient evidence supporting a material factual dispute that would require resolution by a trier of fact.” | 6 |
| 4 | Lisa Ann BURNS, Appellant, v. McGREGOR ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee | green | “it stretches credulity to conceive that a reasonable jury might have thought plaintiffs welcomed from their co-workers the conduct detailed in the evidence at trial.” | 4 |
| 5 | Lisa Ann BURNS, Appellant, v. McGREGOR ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee | green | “widely recognized as not only improper but as intensely degrading, deriving their power to wound not only from their meaning but also from the disgust and violence they express phonetically.” | 4 |
| 6 | Lee KOPP, Appellant, v. SAMARITAN HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., and Saadi Albaghdadi, Appellees | green | “this is not a case where amundsen used the term bitch as a synonym for female-specific characteristics of which he did not approve.” | 4 |
| 7 | Gloria S. Carter v. Chrysler Corporation United Auto Workers, Local 110 | green | “carter, 173 f.3d at 701 (holding that use of sexual epithets is evidence of sexual harassment when co-employee claims he used sexual epithets because plaintiff dressed provocatively and put” | 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.