Tennessee Civil Rights Cases
Cases 11 - 20 of 17,581
Ashbrook
as 1:2024cv00165
Plaintiff:
Hannah Ashbrook
Defendant:
Meigs County, TN, State of Tennessee, Attorney Casey Stokes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00577
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Kelly v. Advance Financial et al
as 3:2024cv00579
Plaintiff:
Henderson Kelly, Jr.
Defendant:
Advance Financial and Wendy's of Bowling Green
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00076
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12117 Americans with Disabilities Act
Smith v. Alexander et al
as 2:2024cv02302
Plaintiff:
Ricky Ricardo Smith
Defendant:
Virginia M. Alexander, Robert Duck and Janeen R. Gordon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hayes v. White et al
as 3:2024cv00207
Plaintiff:
Stephanie Dawn Hayes
Defendant:
Patrick White and Paul Finley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
King et al v. Quad-R, Inc.
as 1:2024cv00047
Plaintiff:
Dillon King and Allison King
Defendant:
Quad-R, Inc. doing business as Rae Products Tennessee, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00571
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00573
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12117 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00572
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
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.
