SICKELS v. CENTRAL NINE CAREER CENTER
Plaintiff: TOMMY SICKELS
Defendant: CENTRAL NINE CAREER CENTER
Case Number: 1:2010cv00479
Filed: April 22, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Age)
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 30, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 57 ORDER - granting 39 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to all of Plaintiff's claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. *** SEE ENTRY ***. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/27/2012. (CKM)
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: SICKELS v. CENTRAL NINE CAREER CENTER
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: CENTRAL NINE CAREER CENTER
Represented By: Rosemary L. Borek
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 ]
Plaintiff: TOMMY SICKELS
Represented By: Michael L. Schultz
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?