Cases 1 - 10 of 252
Mawule Tepe v. USA, et al
as 23-6086
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CURTIS L. COLLIER, United States District Court Judge, KATHERINE A. CRYTZER, United States District Court Judge and others
Mawule Tepe v. Whirlpool Corporation
as 23-6096
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-6094
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Mawule Tepe v. Whirlpool Corporation, et al
as 23-6093
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, MARK JONES and DAKIA TAYLOR
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-6097
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Mawule Tepe v. Travis R. McDonough, et al
as 23-6092
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
TRAVIS RANDALL MCDONOUGH, in his U.S. District Chief Judge position, JANE DOE, I, U.S. District Court's Clerk at Chattanooga, TN, in her personal position, JANE DOE, II, U.S. District Court's Clerk at Chattanooga, TN, in her personal position and others
Mawule Tepe v. Lucille Nelson, et al
as 23-6095
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
LUCILLE LATTIMORE NELSON, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. and WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv01238
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Daughtrey v. Whirlpool Corporation
as 1:2023cv01031
Plaintiff:
Clint Daughtrey
Defendant:
Whirlpool Corporation
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Custer v. Whirlpool Corporation
as 3:2023cv01873
Plaintiff:
Macala Custer
Defendant:
Whirlpool Corporation
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2661 Family Medical Leave 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.
