Nunn v. Huntsville, Alabama, City of et al
| Quenton L Nunn |
| Huntsville, Alabama, City of and Huntsville Madison County Mental Health Board Incorporated |
| 5:2014cv02488 |
| December 30, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
| Northeastern Office |
| Madison |
| Madeline Hughes Haikala |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM OPINION - For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties cross motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 67; Doc. 71). The Court enters judgment as a matter of law in favor of the City on Mr. Nunns § ; 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim. The Court DISMISSES that claim WITH PREJUDICE. The Court SETS Mr. Nunns Title VII and § 1983 religious failure to accommodate claim for a jury trial at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 in the second f loor courtroom, United States District Court, 101 Holmes Ave., Huntsville, AL 35801. By separate order, the Court will provide the parties with pre-trial instructions. On or before April 16, 2018, the parties shall please file, consistent with the Courts instructions above, supplemental briefs of no more than 10 pages concerning Mr. Nunns Title VII retaliation claim. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 3/27/2018. (KEK)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
