Source: cases/NOTES-Flash2.md
# Flash2 extraction notes
Author alias: `Flash2`
Model: `gemini-3.8-flash-high`
## 21 U.S.C. § 841
15 new cases extracted:
- `f3d-150-778-us-v-griffin.case`: 7th Cir. bench trial, 9,965g cocaine in rear cargo box of Yukon; knowledge inferred from contradictory statements, nervousness, flight, and high value ($1.25M); constructive possession as sole occupant/driver.
- `f3d-150-902-us-v-quintanar.case`: 8th Cir., negative holding on constructive possession (`not-satisfied [no-evidence]`). Intercepted UPS package addressed to third party seized before defendant could reduce it to possession.
- `f3d-175-838-us-v-lazcano-villalobos.case`: 10th Cir., 4,467g cocaine in hidden dash compartment of car occupied jointly with spouse; constructive possession proven via circumstantial nexus (air fresheners, dust-free dash, cash courier fee).
- `f3d-175-1208-us-v-jenkins.case`: 10th Cir., dual counts (crack cocaine and marijuana); constructive possession of crack in backyard stash hole and nightstand via key, overnight residence, and marked buy money; marijuana distributed from residence.
- `f3d-225-1053-us-v-nordby.case`: 9th Cir., Apprendi quantity element holding (`not-satisfied [law]`); judge-found 1,000+ marijuana plants under preponderance standard vacated because quantity elevating statutory maximum from 5 years to life must be found by jury beyond reasonable doubt.
- `f3d-250-462-us-v-strayhorn.case`: 6th Cir., Apprendi quantity element holding (`not-satisfied [law]`); judicial finding of 100+ kg marijuana by preponderance of evidence elevating penalty from 10-year nonmandatory maximum to 10-year mandatory minimum vacated.
- `f3d-275-146-us-v-soler.case`: 1st Cir., § 841(b)(1)(C) death resulting (`satisfied [law]`); strict liability without reasonable foreseeability or proximate cause requirement when user overdosed after purchasing heroin believing it was cocaine.
- `f3d-700-1176-us-v-orozco.case`: 8th Cir., commercial co-driver constructive possession of $1.4M cash and 2.8kg cocaine hidden behind light cover; knowledge inferred from value and flight.
- `f3d-910-1174-guillen-v-us-atty-gen.case`: 11th Cir., `role comparator`; categorical approach comparing Florida possession statute to generic federal CSA schedule under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- `f3d-915-1172-us-v-solis.case`: 8th Cir., constructive possession of 2.5kg methamphetamine hidden in children's car seats in defendant's vehicle.
- `f3d-915-1203-us-v-seals.case`: 8th Cir., § 841(b)(1)(C) death-results but-for causation; immediate collapse within 7 minutes after bathroom injection of heroin/fentanyl mixture.
- `f3d-920-567-us-v-druger.case`: 8th Cir., 36.02g methamphetamine in plumbing; intent to distribute proved by distribution quantity, digital scales, baggies, firearm, and customer testimony.
- `f3d-925-1036-us-v-graves.case`: 9th Cir., `role applied` on § 841(b)(1)(A) recidivist enhancement (`not-satisfied [law]`); California prison possession statute overbroad and indivisible, failing categorical match.
- `f3d-930-393-us-v-daniels.case`: 5th Cir., substantive distribution of crack captured on video and aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute under 18 U.S.C. § 2 (no physical possession required for aider/abettor).
- `f3d-932-1091-us-v-mazzulla.case`: 8th Cir., denial of simple possession lesser-included instruction affirmed where evidence showed distribution quantity, baggies, scales, cash, and witness sales testimony.
### What did not fit / Uncertain labels
- `f3d-930-393-us-v-daniels.case`: Count 3 charged aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2 with 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The court explicitly held that an aider and abettor need not possess the drugs; the block uses `aiding-abetting : satisfied [proved]` with `possession` not reached on that count.
- `f3d-225-1053-us-v-nordby.case` and `f3d-250-462-us-v-strayhorn.case`: Both cases address Apprendi violations where the drug quantity was found by the judge rather than the jury. In `21usc841.law`, `quantity` is modeled as an element of the aggravated offense. In both cases, because the jury never found the quantity beyond a reasonable doubt, the aggravated element is coded `not-satisfied [law]`, resulting in vacatur of the aggravated sentences.
- `f3d-925-1036-us-v-graves.case`: Coded `prior-conviction : not-satisfied [law]` and `x-categorical-match : not-satisfied [law]` because California Penal Code § 4573.6 is overbroad and indivisible, disqualifying it from triggering the mandatory life recidivist enhancement under § 841(b)(1)(A).
## 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2
12 new cases extracted:
- `f3d-931-799-mahler-v-first-dakota-title.case`: 8th Cir. (2019); sex-based hostile work environment (`not-satisfied [no-evidence]`, single off-color joke email not unwelcome and not severe or pervasive); discriminatory discharge (`because-of : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`); retaliation (`pretext : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`, uncontradicted evidence of micromanagement and workplace interference).
- `f3d-928-84-mayorga-v-merdon.case`: D.C. Cir. (2019); race and national origin (Hispanic) failure to promote to Electronics Technician; summary judgment for Architect of the Capitol reversed; triable pretext (`satisfied [triable]`) where interviewer fabricated lack of system experience, coupled with mockery of plaintiff's Hispanic name ("Caviar") and accent (`because-of : satisfied [triable]`).
- `f3d-926-859-mawakana-v-bd-of-trs.case`: D.C. Cir. (2019); race discrimination in denial of academic tenure and termination of black law professor; CADC holds university tenure decisions receive no special judicial deference under Title VII; summary judgment reversed on constellation of 5 factors establishing triable pretext and motivating factor (`satisfied [triable]`).
- `f3d-923-1078-figueroa-v-pompeo.case`: D.C. Cir. (2019); national origin (Hispanic Puerto Rican) Foreign Service non-promotion; landmark ruling establishing 4-factor test for employer's McDonnell Douglas step 2 burden of production; State Department failed burden of production (`employer-reason : not-satisfied [law]`) by offering subjective evaluations without clear and reasonably specific explanation of how candidate compared to selectees; disparate impact affirmed dismissed (`impact : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f3d-923-255-luceus-v-rhode-island.case`: 1st Cir. (2019, per Souter, J.); race discrimination (non-promotion) and disparate impact; summary judgment for state affirmed; disparate impact failed for lack of statistically significant disparity (`impact : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`); disparate treatment failed because employer proved disruptive workplace conduct and coworker altercations (`employer-reason : satisfied [proved]`) which statistical evidence did not rebut as pretext (`pretext : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f3d-918-1155-sacchi-v-ihc-health-servs.case`: 10th Cir. (2019); negative holding on employer/employee status (`employer : not-satisfied [law]`); unpaid intern at hospital is not an "employee" under Title VII threshold-remuneration test because academic credits and certification eligibility are incidental benefits, not direct financial remuneration.
- `f3d-919-199-spencer-v-virginia-state-univ.case`: 4th Cir. (2019); Title VII sex wage discrimination and Equal Pay Act; summary judgment for university affirmed; professorial comparators not similarly situated in all material respects (`because-of : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`); university's formulaic policy paying returning administrators 9/12ths of administrative salary established legitimate nondiscriminatory reason with no evidence of pretext (`pretext : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f3d-918-997-garcia-v-salvation-army.case`: 9th Cir. (2019); Title VII religious organization exemption (ROE) under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-1(a) and 2000e-2(e)(2); Salvation Army is an exempt church entity (`defense religious-institution : satisfied [proved]`); holding ROE is nonjurisdictional but reaches hostile work environment and retaliation claims arising out of religious employment.
- `f-supp-3d-382-1170-beck-v-figeac-aero.case`: D. Kan. (2019); national origin discrimination ("reverse" American national origin); Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss denied in part; American national origin recognized as protected class (`protected-class : satisfied [law]`); hostile work environment plausibly pleaded from French supervisor's anti-American derogatory remarks (`hostile-environment : satisfied [pleaded]`); constructive discharge plausibly pleaded (`adverse-action : satisfied [pleaded]`).
- `f-supp-3d-375-117-evans-v-staples.case`: D. Mass. (2019); race discrimination; Title VII claim against individual supervisor dismissed with prejudice for lack of individual liability (`employer : not-satisfied [law]`, `party individual-supervisor-jessica-dagg`); motion to dismiss denied as to employer Staples (`employer : satisfied [pleaded]`, `party corporate-employer-staples`) where plaintiff plausibly alleged disparate treatment and termination after race became known (`because-of : satisfied [pleaded]`).
- `f-supp-3d-357-95-martinelli-v-bancroft-chophouse.case`: D. Mass. (2019); male restaurant server; summary judgment for employer granted; single crude comment by supervisor plus general subjective feeling of being ostracized did not establish severe or pervasive hostile work environment (`hostile-environment : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`); constructive discharge rejected because conditions were not intolerable and plaintiff never utilized HR reporting channels (`adverse-action : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f-supp-3d-384-199-henderson-v-mbta.case`: D. Mass. (2019); race discrimination in failure to promote streetcar operator to supervisor; summary judgment for transit authority granted; employer proved low interview score was legitimate reason (`employer-reason : satisfied [proved]`); procedural anomalies and past organizational consent decrees failed to show pretext for racial animus (`pretext : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
### What did not fit / Uncertain labels (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2)
- `f3d-918-1155-sacchi-v-ihc-health-servs.case`: The threshold question was whether an unpaid intern is an "employee" under Title VII. In `42usc2000e-2.law`, the covered-entity element is `employer`. Because Sacchi received no direct remuneration, IHC Health Services was not an employer as to her under Title VII; this was coded `employer : not-satisfied [law]`.
- `f3d-918-997-garcia-v-salvation-army.case`: The primary holding was on the Religious Organization Exemption under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a) (and § 2000e-2(e)(2)). In `42usc2000e-2.law`, this is defined as `exception religious-institution`. In the DSL grammar, exceptions function as defenses (`defense religious-institution : satisfied [proved]`).
- `f3d-923-1078-figueroa-v-pompeo.case`: The D.C. Circuit clarified that an employer's burden of production at McDonnell Douglas step 2 is an independent legal requirement. The State Department's failure to offer clear, specific evidence explaining candidate comparisons meant it failed its burden of production as a matter of law (`employer-reason : not-satisfied [law]`).
## 42 U.S.C. § 1981
11 new cases extracted:
- `f3d-923-1246-lambert-v-tesla.case`: 9th Cir. (2019); arbitrability of Section 1981 race discrimination claims; arbitration clause in factory production associate contract enforced under FAA (`remedies : not-satisfied [law]`).
- `f-supp-3d-385-224-benzinger-v-nysarc.case`: S.D.N.Y. (2019); race discrimination and retaliation; motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6); direct Section 1981 claims against private non-profit employer dismissed for failure to allege racial intent (`racial-intent : not-satisfied [pleaded]`) and failure to identify protected contractual right (`own-contract : not-satisfied [pleaded]`).
- `f-supp-3d-368-489-sosa-v-nyc-dept-of-educ.case`: S.D.N.Y. (2019); Hispanic teacher; direct Section 1981 claims against public municipal entity (NYC DOE) dismissed under Jett because Section 1983 provides the exclusive federal damages remedy for violation of Section 1981 rights by state actors (`state-remedial-route : not-satisfied [pleaded]`).
- `f-supp-3d-371-407-wang-v-gen-motors.case`: E.D. Mich. (2019); Asian research engineer; summary judgment for GM; employer proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory performance evaluations for non-promotion and termination; plaintiff failed to show pretext under McDonnell Douglas (`racial-intent : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f-supp-3d-377-273-gonzalez-v-city-of-ny.case`: E.D.N.Y. (2019); Section 1981 claims against city municipality and police department dismissed under Jett (`state-remedial-route : not-satisfied [pleaded]`) for lack of Section 1983 vehicle and failure to allege Monell official policy or custom.
- `f3d-929-618-fcs-advisors-v-missouri.case`: 8th Cir. (2019); financial advisory company owned by minority shareholder; commercial contract impairment; Section 1981 claim dismissed under Domino's Pizza because corporate entity lacked racial identity and minority owner lacked personal rights under the proposed state contract (`own-contract : not-satisfied [pleaded]`).
- `f3d-933-932-beasley-v-warren-unilube.case`: 8th Cir. (2019); race-based hostile work environment and constructive discharge; summary judgment for employer affirmed; coworker racial slurs were reprimanded and terminated; harassment not severe or pervasive (`hostile-environment : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f3d-928-622-fields-v-bd-of-educ-of-chi.case`: 7th Cir. (2019); African-American tenured teachers laid off under school turnaround policy; Section 1981 claim against Chicago Board of Education dismissed under Jett / Monell (`state-remedial-route : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`) for lack of evidence that policymaker acted with discriminatory racial intent.
- `f3d-927-961-freeman-v-metro-water-reclamation-dist.case`: 7th Cir. (2019); African-American probationary plant operator; 12(b)(6) dismissal vacated in part; notice pleading standard requires only basic factual allegations of racial discrimination (`racial-intent : satisfied [pleaded]`), though Monell policy claim failed (`state-remedial-route : not-satisfied [pleaded]`).
- `f3d-924-519-haynes-v-dist-of-columbia-water.case`: D.C. Cir. (2019); black electrician at water authority terminated for failure to obtain journeyman license; denial of Rule 56(d) discovery affirmed and summary judgment affirmed (`contractual-impairment : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`, `racial-intent : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f-supp-3d-376-1228-mills-v-cellco-partnership.case`: N.D. Ala. (2019); African-American retail sales representative; summary judgment denied as to discriminatory shift scheduling (`contractual-impairment : satisfied [triable]`, `racial-intent : satisfied [triable]`); summary judgment granted on hostile work environment (`hostile-environment : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`) and retaliation (`protected-activity : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
### What did not fit / Uncertain labels (42 U.S.C. § 1981)
- `f3d-929-618-fcs-advisors-v-missouri.case`: Domino's Pizza shareholder standing rule: a shareholder/officer does not have rights under a corporation's contract, and a corporation has no racial identity without explicit minority certification or shareholder veil piercing. Coded `own-contract : not-satisfied [pleaded]`.
- `f-supp-3d-368-489-sosa-v-nyc-dept-of-educ.case` & `f-supp-3d-377-273-gonzalez-v-city-of-ny.case` & `f3d-928-622-fields-v-bd-of-educ-of-chi.case`: Jett rule: § 1981 does not provide an independent cause of action against state actors/municipalities; plaintiffs must enforce § 1981 rights against state actors via § 1983 and satisfy Monell. Coded `state-remedial-route : not-satisfied [pleaded]` or `[no-evidence]`.
- `f3d-923-1246-lambert-v-tesla.case`: Enforceability of employment arbitration agreements under the FAA for § 1981 statutory civil rights claims. Coded `remedies : not-satisfied [law]`.
## 29 U.S.C. § 623
12 new cases extracted:
- `f3d-916-242-bryan-v-govt-of-the-vi.case`: 3rd Cir. (2019); VIESA 3% increased pension contribution for workers with 30+ years of credited service; disparate treatment failed under Hazen Paper because credited service is distinct from age (`age-causation : not-satisfied [law]`); disparate impact defeated by Reasonable Factors Other Than Age defense (`defense rfoa : satisfied [law]`) based on legitimate cost-savings and solvency.
- `f3d-907-460-dayton-v-oakton-cmty-coll.case`: 7th Cir. (2018); community college policy prohibiting rehiring of SURS annuitants to avoid statutory return-to-work surcharges; disparate impact defeated by RFOA defense (`defense rfoa : satisfied [proved]`); retaliation claim failed for lack of causal link (`retaliation-causation : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f3d-899-629-eggers-v-wells-fargo-bank.case`: 8th Cir. (2018); Wells Fargo policy refusing to sponsor FDI Act Section 19 waivers; disparate impact summary judgment affirmed for lack of statistical evidence demonstrating disparity against employees 40 and older (`age-disparity : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f3d-898-77-rivera-rivera-v-medina-medina.case`: 1st Cir. (2018); daily age harassment ("vieja") over two years sufficient to state triable hostile work environment (`employment-action : satisfied [triable]`, `age-causation : satisfied [triable]`); retaliation claim reinstated based on threats of termination and retaliatory constructive discharge after filing EEOC charges (`retaliatory-adversity : satisfied [triable]`, `retaliation-causation : satisfied [triable]`).
- `f-supp-3d-366-983-richardson-v-astec.case`: E.D. Tenn. (2019); manufacturing accounting employee; summary judgment for employer denied; plaintiff established prima facie case and triable pretext (`age-causation : satisfied [triable]`) where younger coworker was not disciplined for core value violations and plaintiff was given a forced retire-or-be-fired ultimatum without an opportunity to respond.
- `f-supp-3d-366-756-boney-v-trs-of-cape-fear.case`: E.D.N.C. (2019); 62-year-old college employee; 12(b)(6) dismissal granted; performance improvement plans and closer supervision do not constitute objectively intolerable working conditions for constructive discharge (`employment-action : not-satisfied [pleaded]`).
- `f-supp-3d-361-616-rogers-v-medline-indus.case`: S.D. Miss. (2019); medical sales manager; summary judgment granted on disparate impact for failure to identify a specific neutral employment practice (`neutral-practice : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`), but denied on disparate treatment where genuine issues of material fact existed regarding sales performance pretext (`age-causation : satisfied [triable]`).
- `f-supp-3d-345-590-williams-v-temple-univ-hosp.case`: E.D. Pa. (2018); 28-year hospital linen employee; summary judgment for employer denied; plaintiff established prima facie case and triable pretext (`age-causation : satisfied [triable]`) based on discretionary application of progressive discipline and manager's contemporaneous note that plaintiff was "close to retirement."
- `f-supp-3d-343-681-kitchen-v-basf.case`: S.D. Tex. (2018); chemical plant worker discharged after drug testing; summary judgment for employer granted; plaintiff presented no evidence of younger replacement or disparate treatment and relied solely on subjective belief (`age-causation : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`), reinforced by same-protected-class decisionmaker presumption.
- `f-supp-3d-320-373-jardin-v-coxcom.case`: D.R.I. (2018); facilities technician discharged for vehicle littering policy violation; summary judgment for employer granted; isolated age comments by non-decisionmaker supervisor 4-5 months prior lacked nexus to termination and failed to show pretext (`age-causation : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f-supp-3d-321-839-shoap-v-city-of-crossville.case`: M.D. Tenn. (2018); interim police chief; summary judgment for city granted; plaintiff failed to show adverse employment action or constructive discharge (`employment-action : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`); retaliation claim failed for lack of protected activity because plaintiff never filed a complaint or grievance asserting ADEA rights (`protected-activity : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
- `f-supp-3d-343-753-mcdaniel-v-progress-rail.case`: N.D. Ill. (2018); locomotive maintenance worker; summary judgment for employer granted; plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case of disparate treatment under McDonnell Douglas or Ortiz (`age-causation : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`); retaliation claim failed for lack of causal connection or temporal proximity between overtime complaint and adverse actions (`retaliation-causation : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`).
### What did not fit / Uncertain labels (29 U.S.C. § 623)
- `f3d-916-242-bryan-v-govt-of-the-vi.case`: The Third Circuit addressed whether the "equal benefit or equal cost rule" of 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(2)(B) was violated. The court held that the rule is an exception to an affirmative defense that the government did not assert, not an independent basis for affirmative liability. The ruling was therefore coded under `defense rfoa : satisfied [law]` and `age-causation : not-satisfied [law]`.
- `f3d-898-77-rivera-rivera-v-medina-medina.case`: Hostile work environment claims under the ADEA fall under 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) ("terms, conditions, or privileges of employment"). Coded under `employment-action : satisfied [triable]` with variant `terms/hostile-work-environment`.
- `f-supp-3d-361-616-rogers-v-medline-indus.case`: Disparate impact claim abandoned in responsive briefing and dismissed for failure to isolate a specific employment practice. Coded under `neutral-practice : not-satisfied [no-evidence]`.