Cases 1 - 10 of 26,559
MOORE v. ALLENTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 5:2024cv02754
Plaintiff:
LINDELL MOORE
Defendant:
ALLENTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DAKOTA MARTIN and MERVEILLE MUINDO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02750
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02776
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02771
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02772
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02760
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02737
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02738
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
HARLEY v. MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA, CHERELLE PARKER et al
as 2:2024cv02729
Plaintiff:
MARY A. HARLEY
Defendant:
MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA, CHERELLE PARKER, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, ALL MEMBERS OF CITY HALL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
KRAEMER v. WADDELL
as 2:2024cv02740
Plaintiff:
THOMAS KRAEMER
Defendant:
TINA M. WADDELL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
