Cases 1 - 10 of 44
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00273
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Seay v. James et al
as 1:2023cv05232
Plaintiff:
Tamika Seay
Defendant:
Lisa James and Antresa Lumpkin-Knighten
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv23910
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Gibson-Carter v. Rape Crisis Center et al
as 4:2019cv00122
Defendant:
Katie Joyner-Barber, Mark Revenew, Lynne Wolf and others
Plaintiff:
Kesha Gibson-Carter
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
HARVEY v. LUMPKIN, CITY OF et al
as 4:2019cv00046
Defendant:
Gary Yochum, Jr., CHIEF JOHN TYLER, SHANENA HALE and others
Plaintiff:
ELIJAH HARVEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv00238
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv00947
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv01624
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12117 ad
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2017cv00258
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Thomas Worthy, et al v. Phenix City, Alabama, et al
as 17-14718
Plaintiff - Appellant:
THOMAS F. WORTHY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, JAMES D. ADAMS, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated and WILLCOX-LUMPKIN CO., INC., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated
Defendant - Appellee:
PHENIX CITY, ALABAMA and REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.
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.