Shaw v. Cincinnati, City of
Plaintiff: Nancy Shaw
Defendant: Cincinnati, City of
Case Number: 1:2010cv00462
Filed: July 15, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Cincinnati Office
County: HAMILTON
Presiding Judge: Herman J. Weber
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000
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
April 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER that defendant's 10 Motion to Dismiss is Denied with respect to plaintiff's Title VII sex discrimination claim (Count 1) and Granted with respect to Counts II and III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 4/6/2011. (art)
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 Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Shaw v. Cincinnati, City of
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nancy Shaw
Represented By: Ivan Lawrence Tamarkin
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: Cincinnati, City of
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?