Laslie v. Chicago Transit Authority et al
Plaintiff: Peter J. Laslie
Defendant: Chicago Transit Authority, Richard Rodriguez, Dave Gabowski and Tonisha Sulton
Case Number: 1:2010cv03031
Filed: May 17, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office: Chicago Office
County: Cook
Presiding Judge: Robert M. Dow
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 2, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 116 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order:For the foregoing reasons, Laslies Motion to reopen his case, vacate theCourts prior Order, and reinstate his case, R. 114, is granted in part to the extent that the Court reopened the case to determine whether the arbitr ation decision would have changed the outcome of the Courts prior Order, but denied in part as the Court reaffirms its prior Order dismissing Laslies discrimination claim and declines to reinstate Laslies case. Accordingly Laslies race discrimination claim is dismissed with prejudice, and this action is terminated. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 2/2/2015:Mailed notice(srn, )
March 22, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 86 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Laslie has failed to demonstrate any genuine issue of material fact on his Title VII claims. The Court understands Laslie's frustration that Grabski largely escaped discipline for the January 2009 collision. But Laslie has not presented even a scintilla of evidence that race was a motivating factor for the CTA's disciplinary decisions for the January 2009 collision, or that his December 23, 2009 discharge was retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint in April 2009. The CTA's Motion for Summary Judgment 68 , is granted in its entirety. This action is dismissed with prejudice. Case Terminated Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 3/22/2013:Mailed notice(srn, )
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 Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Laslie v. Chicago Transit Authority et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Peter J. Laslie
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: Chicago Transit Authority
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: Richard Rodriguez
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: Dave Gabowski
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: Tonisha Sulton
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?