Cases 51 - 60 of 322
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv00086
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Davidson v. Aramark Food Service et al
as 1:2020cv03851
Defendant:
Jefferson County Sheriffs Department, Aramark Food Service and L. Sayers
Plaintiff:
Cody Evans Davidson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Toomer v. Nelson et al
as 1:2020cv00374
Plaintiff:
Jesse Carl Toomer
Defendant:
Aramark Food Services, Mike Ezell, Tyrone Nelson and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOWLES v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE INC. et al
as 1:2020cv03204
Defendant:
ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE INC., JANE DOE, H. WINNINGHAM and others
Plaintiff:
RANDALL BOWLES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sharp v. Aramark Food Service Corporation et al
as 2:2020cv00774
Plaintiff:
William Sharp
Defendant:
Kathy Hubb and Aramark Food Service Corporation
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Abbott v. Aramark Food Services et al
as 2:2020cv01597
Defendant:
Aramark Food Services, Waukesha County Jail and Correctional Officer Hoskins
Plaintiff:
Richard Dell Abbott
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McKenzie v. Winnebago County Sheriff et al
as 3:2020cv50352
Defendant:
Winnebago County State's Attorney, Rick Ciganek, Winnebago County Jail and others
Plaintiff:
Victoria C. McKenzie
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
JESTER v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES et al
as 2:2020cv00461
Defendant:
LISA BOCK, ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES, DANIEL BEDWELL and others
Plaintiff:
RICKY JESTER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SALTER v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE
as 2:2020cv00449
Plaintiff:
TRACEY LAMOUAR SALTER, II and GODLY DASYPUL
Defendant:
ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MCMULLEN v. BEDWELL et al
as 2:2020cv00343
Defendant:
D. BEDWELL, ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE OF INDIANA, LLC and B. SMITH
Plaintiff:
HENRY TYWAN MCMULLEN, SR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
