Wilson v. The Shaw Group, Inc./Shaw Constructors, Inc.
Plaintiff: Phyllis Wilson
Defendant: The Shaw Group, Inc./Shaw Constructors, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2011cv00028
Filed: June 24, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Virginia
Office: Big Stone Gap Office
Presiding Judge: James P. Jones
Presiding Judge: Pamela Meade Sargent
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
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
December 10, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 24 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 12/10/12. (flc)
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 Virginia Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Wilson v. The Shaw Group, Inc./Shaw Constructors, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: The Shaw Group, Inc./Shaw Constructors, 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 ]
Plaintiff: Phyllis Wilson
Represented By: Marsha Ann Arnurius
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?