Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Casanova v. Pfizer and Affiliates et al
as 3:2024cv00396
Plaintiff:
Ashley Casanova
Defendant:
Pfizer and Affiliates, Actalent Temporary Agency and Affiliates, GRAIL INC. and Affiliates and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Jackson v. Actalent Services, LLC et al
as 2:2024cv10933
Plaintiff:
Wayne C. Jackson
Defendant:
Actalent Services, LLC, Actalent, Inc, Aerotek Affiliated Services, Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
Ashley Casanova v. Joe Biden
as 24-1235
Plaintiff:
ASHLEY CASANOVA
Defendant:
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NORTH CAROLINA and others
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)
Aerotek, Inc. et al v. ML Builders, LLC
as 6:2023cv05557
Plaintiff:
Aerotek, Inc. and Actalent, Inc.
Defendant:
ML Builders, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
GOKHMAN v. ACTALENT, INC.
as 2:2023cv04183
Plaintiff:
BRITTANY GOKHMAN
Defendant:
ACTALENT, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv04210
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
KONATE v. ACTALENT. INC. et al
as 2:2023cv04210
Plaintiff:
DESIREE KONATE
Defendant:
ACTALENT. INC., DISTEK, INC., MEGHAN ALBRIGHT and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv05310
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
