Cases 1 - 10 of 33
Ecock-Rotondo v. Rochester Institute of Technology
as 6:2023cv06166
Plaintiff:
Dr. Jessica L. Ecock-Rotondo, Ph.D.
Defendant:
Rochester Institute of Technology
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
Bergeron v. Rochester Institute of Technology
as 23-271
Plaintiff:
Barbara Mycek, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Nicholas Bergeron and Nick Quattrociocchi, on behalf of himself and other individuals similarly situated
Defendant / Appellee:
Rochester Institute of Technology
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2022cv06028
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2021cv06761
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 20 U.S.C. § 1401 Education: Handicapped Child Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2021cv06596
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv01039
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Denning v. Rochester Institute of Technology et al
as 6:2021cv06158
Defendant:
Stacy Derooy, S. Manian Ramkumar, Rochester Institute of Technology and others
Plaintiff:
Cayla Denning
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2020cv07095
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2020cv07096
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Quattrociocchi v. Rochester Institute of Technology
as 6:2020cv06558
Defendant:
Rochester Institute of Technology
Plaintiff:
Nick Quattrociocchi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
