Williams v. Deloitte & Touche LLP
Plaintiff: Kerry Williams
Defendant: Deloitte & Touche LLP
Case Number: 3:2009cv00017
Filed: January 6, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office: Civil Rights: Jobs Office
County: Hartford
Presiding Judge: Janet C. Hall
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
October 26, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 48 RULING granting 10 Motion to Dismiss Count Four of the Complaint and 40 Supplemental Response to Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 10/26/09. (Simpson, T.)
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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Williams v. Deloitte & Touche LLP
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Kerry Williams
Represented By: Emanuele Robert Cicchiello
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: Deloitte & Touche LLP
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?