Shenk v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole et al
| Elizabeth Zeisloft Shenk |
| The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Catherine McVey and John Tuttle |
| 1:2011cv01238 |
| June 30, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Harrisburg Office |
| Dauphin |
| John E. Jones |
| 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
54
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: 1. The R and R 46 of MJ Methvin is ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part to the following extent:a. REJECTED to the extent that it recommends that summary judgment be denied as to Pltfs FMLA claim.b. ADOPTED in all other respe cts.2. Dfts Motion for Summary Judgment 31 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part to the following extent:a. GRANTED to the extent it relates to the Pltfs USERRA, FMLA, and Associational discrimination claims. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of the Df ts on Count V (USERRA), Count VI (FMLA) and Count VII (ADA associational discrimination).b. DENIED in all other respects.3. Within (14) days of the date of this Order, the parties shall file a joint stipulation on the docket placing this matter on a trial term consistent with the Courts calendar, as attached hereto.Signed by Honorable John E. Jones, III on 05/13/13 (ma)
|
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 Pennsylvania Middle 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.
