Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Boyd v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al
as 3:2024cv00651
Plaintiff:
Howard L. Boyd
Defendant:
United Parcel Service, Inc. and Robert Vaughan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Wooles v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (Ohio)
as 2:2018cv01206
Defendant:
United Parcel Service General Services Co., United Parcel Service, Inc., United Parcel Service, Co. and others
Plaintiff:
Aaron Wooles
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LUCAS v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
as 3:2017cv00275
Plaintiff:
HENRY LUCAS, JR.
Defendant:
United Parcel Service, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Anderson v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al
as 3:2016cv00040
Plaintiff:
Talyon Anderson
Defendant:
United Parcel Service, Inc., Jeff Bloedorn and Ken Harms
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Smith v. United Parcel Service
as 2:2014cv00131
Plaintiff:
Matthew Alan Smith
Defendant:
United Parcel Service, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Timothy Kays v. Jack Coffee, et al
as 14-5530
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TIMOTHY D. KAYS
Defendant - Appellee:
JACK COFFEE, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., MIKE FEDERSPEIL and others
Amar Gueye v. UPS, et al
as 14-5038
Plaintiff - Appellant:
AMAR GUEYE
Defendant - Appellee:
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. and ZULILY
Leonard Franks v. State of Arizona, et al
as 13-2159
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LEONARD DAVID FRANKS, aka Lenny Franks, aka D. Cutler
Defendant - Appellee:
STATE OF ARIZONA, JANICE BREWER, Governor, THOMAS CHARLES HORN, Arizona Attorney General and others
Kleiman v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al
as 2:2012cv00025
Plaintiff:
Mark J. Kleiman
Defendant:
United Parcel Service, Inc., Local Union #100, IBT , Fareed Koury and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lewis v. United Parcel Service Inc
as 2:2010cv02257
Plaintiff:
Melandy Lewis
Defendant:
United Parcel Service Inc
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
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.
