HAMPTON v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INC.
Plaintiff: KEVIN HAMPTON
Defendant: UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INC.
Case Number: 1:2008cv00563
Filed: April 29, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Civil Rights: Jobs Office
County: Hendricks
Presiding Judge: David Frank Hamilton
Presiding Judge: William T. Lawrence
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
February 12, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER denying 45 Motion to Strike ; granting 34 Motion for Summary Judgment and Directing Entry of Final Judgment (S.O.). Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 2/12/2010. (MAC)
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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: HAMPTON v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INC.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: KEVIN HAMPTON
Represented By: Paul Anthony Logan
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: UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INC.
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?