Cases 1 - 10 of 244
A. Philip Randolph Institute v. North Carolina State Board of Elections
as 24-1512
Plaintiff:
NORTH CAROLINA A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE and ACTION NC
Defendant:
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, DAMON CIRCOSTA, in his official capacity as CHAIR OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, STELLA ANDERSON, in her official capacity as SECRETARY OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv01635
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2024cv01635
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Harris v. Redwood et al
as 1:2024cv00306
Plaintiff:
James Harris
Defendant:
Warden Donald Redwood, Deputy Warden Cynthia Davis, Deputy Warden Nicole Joseph and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02300
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
Williams v. Tik-Tok, Inc.
as 1:2024cv00130
Plaintiff:
Wendy M. Williams
Defendant:
Tik-Tok, Inc., Zhang Yiming and TIK TOK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Williams v. AT&T
as 1:2024cv00092
Plaintiff:
Wendy M. Williams
Defendant:
AT&T
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv01155
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00436
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-10682
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
