Lane v. Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency

Justia Dockets & Filings Eleventh Circuit Alabama Northern District Lane v. Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency

Lane v. Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency

Plaintiff:	Linda S Lane
Defendant:	Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency
Case Number:	5:2014cv02304
Filed:	November 28, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
Office:	Northeastern Office
County:	Madison
Presiding Judge:	Madeline Hughes Haikala
Nature of Suit:	Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 12117
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
February 28, 2020	Filing 102 MEMORANDUM OPINION: Ms. Pedersen (formerly Ms. Lane) requested reinstatement in her third amended complaint but abandoned the request during discovery. Absent reinstatement, Ms. Pedersen lacks standing to seek prospective relief under the Rehabilitation Act. The Court dismisses Ms. Pedersen's claim for injunctive or declaratory relief for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 02/28/2020. (ZTC)
September 30, 2019	Filing 84 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 67 - For the reasons discussed above, the Court enters judgment in favor of the Secretary with respect to Ms. Lane's claim for damages (compensatory and punitive) under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and with respect to Ms. Lane's Title VII retaliation claim. The Court sets this matter for a telephone conference at 1:30 on October 1, 2019. By separate order, the Court will provide call information. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 9/30/2019. (KEK)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 28, 2020

Filing 102 MEMORANDUM OPINION: Ms. Pedersen (formerly Ms. Lane) requested reinstatement in her third amended complaint but abandoned the request during discovery. Absent reinstatement, Ms. Pedersen lacks standing to seek prospective relief under the Rehabilitation Act. The Court dismisses Ms. Pedersen's claim for injunctive or declaratory relief for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 02/28/2020. (ZTC)

September 30, 2019

Filing 84 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 67 - For the reasons discussed above, the Court enters judgment in favor of the Secretary with respect to Ms. Lane's claim for damages (compensatory and punitive) under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and with respect to Ms. Lane's Title VII retaliation claim. The Court sets this matter for a telephone conference at 1:30 on October 1, 2019. By separate order, the Court will provide call information. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 9/30/2019. (KEK)

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 Alabama Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lane v. Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Linda S Lane
Represented By:	Benjamin Howard Cooper
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: Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency
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?