Cases 1 - 8 of 8
HARWANI v. THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION et al
as 1:2021cv00522
Defendant:
THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION, Dr. JONATHAN J BERRY, THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION doing business as CONE HEALTH MOSES CONE HOSPITAL doing business as MOSES CONE HOSPITAL and others
Plaintiff:
Dr. MOHAN N HARWANI and MOHAN N. HARWANI, M.D.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv00704
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv00465
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
GILLESPIE v. MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
as 1:2013cv00487
Plaintiff:
BRYAN GILLESPIE
Defendant:
MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Age)
WADE-FOSTER v. THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION - PENN NURSING CENTER
as 1:2010cv00218
Plaintiff:
MARILYN WADE-FOSTER
Defendant:
THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION - PENN NURSING CENTER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
CRAWLEY v. THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORP. - PENN NURSING CENTER
as 1:2010cv00209
Plaintiff:
MARTHA CRAWLEY
Defendant:
THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION - PENN NURSING CENTER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
BALDWIN v. MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al
as 1:2009cv00328
Plaintiff:
ROBERT BALDWIN
Defendant:
MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and WESLEY LONG COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2008cv00094
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12112 Americans with Disabilities 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.
