US District Court for the District of Massachusetts Civil Rights Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 8,478
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv40062
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv11060
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 754 Discrimination
Morrill v. Beth Israel Lahey Health, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv11041
Plaintiff:
Catherine Morrill
Defendant:
Beth Israel Lahey Health, Inc. and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Joseph v. DHL Express (USA) Inc.
as 1:2024cv11048
Plaintiff:
Jefferson Joseph
Defendant:
DHL Express (USA) Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Donnelly v. Town of Scituate et al
as 1:2024cv11046
Plaintiff:
Matthew J. Donnelly
Defendant:
Town of Scituate, Maura C. Curran, Andrew W Goodrich and others
Interested Party:
Town of Cohasset
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv11042
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Strong v. Cambridge Health Alliance
as 1:2024cv10968
Plaintiff:
Gregory M Strong
Defendant:
Cambridge Health Alliance
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Strong v. North Suffolk Community Services
as 1:2024cv11030
Plaintiff:
Gregory M Strong
Defendant:
North Suffolk Community Services
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Strong v. USPS
as 1:2024cv11034
Plaintiff:
Gregory M Strong
Defendant:
USPS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Strong v. YouTube(GOOGLE LLC)
as 1:2024cv11033
Plaintiff:
Gregory M Strong
Defendant:
YouTube(GOOGLE LLC)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
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.
