Eustace et al v. Springfield Public Schools
| Mary Jane Eustace, Ruth Chappel and Constance Rodd |
| Springfield Public Schools |
| 3:2017cv30158 |
| November 1, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Springfield Office |
| Hampden |
| Katherine A. Robertson |
| Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 0794 |
| 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
223
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Defendants Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law AfterTrial and/or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial and/or Remittitur (Dkt. No. 187) is DENIED as to its request for entry of judgment as a matter of law, GRANTED as to its request for a new trial, and DENIED AS MOOT as to the request for remittitur.(Zamorski, Michael)
|
|
Filing
78
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered as follows: For the reasons stated, Defendants motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 32, 37, 42, 47) are DENIED-IN-PART with respect to the federal claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act of Plaintiffs Rodd, Eustace, and Blanks as well as Plaintiffs request for declaratory judgment, and GRANTED-IN-PART with respect to the federal claims of Plaintiff Chappel and all Plaintiffs state claims. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on their request for declaratory judgment (Dkt. No. 52) is GRANTED. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)
|
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 Massachusetts 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.
