BAROT v. EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA

Defendant: EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA
Plaintiff: DOLORES BAROT
Case Number: 1:2013cv00451
Filed: April 9, 2013
Court: District Of Columbia District Court
Office: Washington, DC Office
County: 11001
Presiding Judge: Amy Berman Jackson
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
April 11, 2014 32 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 4/11/2014. (lcabj1)
June 2, 2014 38 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 6/2/2014. (lcabj1)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BAROT v. EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: DOLORES BAROT
Represented By: Leonardo Abueg Canseco
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.