BURKARD v. FINNER N FINNER, LLC

BURKARD v. FINNER N FINNER, LLC

Plaintiff:	SERENA P. BURKARD
Defendant:	FINNER N FINNER, LLC
Case Number:	1:2014cv00515
Filed:	April 4, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	Debra McVicker Lynch
Presiding Judge:	Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
May 17, 2016	Filing 54 ENTRY ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Finner N Finner, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 44) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Burkard's claim for retaliation is dismissed with prejudice, however, her claim for sex and pregnancy discrimination remains pending for trial. (See order). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/17/2016. (JLS)
January 26, 2016	Filing 53 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE - In this employment discrimination action, Ms. Burkard seeks to prohibit the Defendant Finner N Finner, LLC ("Finner"), its attorneys, and any witnesses from introducing evidence or testifying con cerning her criminal history. Finner filed a response in opposition to Ms. Burkard's Motion in Limine, pointing out the potential relevancy and admissibility of her criminal history (Filing No. 37). For the following reasons, Ms. Burkard's Motion in Limine is DENIED. (See order). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/26/2016. (JLS)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 17, 2016

Filing 54 ENTRY ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Finner N Finner, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 44) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Burkard's claim for retaliation is dismissed with prejudice, however, her claim for sex and pregnancy discrimination remains pending for trial. (See order). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/17/2016. (JLS)

January 26, 2016

Filing 53 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE - In this employment discrimination action, Ms. Burkard seeks to prohibit the Defendant Finner N Finner, LLC ("Finner"), its attorneys, and any witnesses from introducing evidence or testifying con cerning her criminal history. Finner filed a response in opposition to Ms. Burkard's Motion in Limine, pointing out the potential relevancy and admissibility of her criminal history (Filing No. 37). For the following reasons, Ms. Burkard's Motion in Limine is DENIED. (See order). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/26/2016. (JLS)

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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BURKARD v. FINNER N FINNER, LLC
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: SERENA P. BURKARD
Represented By:	Daniel LaPointe Kent
Represented By:	Mary Jane Lapointe
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: FINNER N FINNER, LLC
Represented By:	Michael Rabinowitch
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?