Buxbaum v. Commissioner of Social Security
| Yolanda Buxbaum |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| SSA (Court Use Only) |
| 2:2016cv00465 |
| November 2, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Hammond Office |
| Lake |
| Andrew P Rodovich |
| Theresa L Springmann |
| 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
59
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 55 MOTION for Reconsideration re 53 Order on Motion for Protective Order filed by Yolanda Buxbaum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 8/7/2020. (mrm)
|
|
Filing
29
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Only the following claims remain in the case: (1) Count I as it relates to the adverse employment decisions mentioned in the 2013 Charge; (2) Count II as it relates to the adverse employment decisions mentioned in the 2013 Charge; (3) Count IV as it relates to the adverse employment decisions mentioned in the 2013 Charge; (4) Count V as it relates to the adverse employment decisions menti oned in the 2012 Charge; and, (5) Counts I and II as they relate to policies of maintaining separate lines of progression based on sex, race, and national origin. All other claims are DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 9/20/18. (ksp)
|
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 Indiana 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.
