Search for:
clear search

Docket Number

Key Dates

Filing Date

Settlement / Judgment Date

Terminating Date

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Case Details

Outcome

Issues

MORE▾

Document Details

Document Filing Date

MORE▾

Document Citation (Choose One)

Use this for most court reporters

S.Ct. reporter and WL only

LEXIS and L.Ed. only

Search for:
143 cases, 132 documents
Ordered by
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
Foster v. City of Pittsburgh

2:12-cv-01207 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Filed Date: Aug. 3, 2012

Closed Date: June 8, 2018

On August 3, 2012, two African-American men filed this class action lawsuit, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs sued the City of Pittsburgh, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as applied by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 951. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and the ACLU of Pennsylvan…
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
Casa de Maryland v. Wolf

8:20-cv-02118 | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Filed Date: July 21, 2020

Case Ongoing

This is a case about the legality of two rules issued by the Department of Homeland Security in June 2020 that would delay or eliminate employment authorization documents (EADs) for asylum seekers beginning in August 2020. On July 21, 2020, five nonprofit legal services organizations filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its Secretary in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The organizations sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 …
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
Doe v. Trump

2:17-cv-00178 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Filed Date: Feb. 7, 2017

Closed Date: Feb. 3, 2022

This class action challenged President Trump's January 27, 2017, Executive Order (EO-1) which prohibited admission to the US for nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit on February 7, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs were represented by the ACLU of Washington and private counsel. On November 29, 2017, this case was consolidated with Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No…
PUBLIC BENEFITS/GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Franciscan Alliance, LLC v. Burwell

7:16-cv-00108 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Filed Date: Aug. 23, 2016

Case Ongoing

On August 23, 2016, states and religiously-affiliated health organizations filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiffs sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its Secretary under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act claiming violations of these Acts and their First, Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Amendment rights. The plaintiffs claimed that new regulations promulgated by HHS, which redefin…
SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse

1:14-cv-01043 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Filed Date: Aug. 14, 2014

Closed Date: March 20, 2018

Prior to this case, five Native American petitioners brought an administrative complaint seeking the cancellation of the Washington Redskins’ (Pro-Football) trademarks containing the word “Redskins” because, they said, the word disparaged Native Americans and violated Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1520(a). The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“TTAB”) ruled in the petitioners’ favor and cancelled six federal trademark registrations containin…
EDUCATION
Mansorian v. Regents of University of California

2:03-cv-02591 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Filed Date: Dec. 18, 2003

Closed Date: 2012

On December 18, 2003, current and former female wrestlers at the University of California-Davis ("UC Davis") filed this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs sued UC Davis on behalf of all current and future female Davis students denied equal athletic participation opportunities and scholarships. The plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief under Title IX and also asserted equal protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.During the 2…
DISABILITY RIGHTS
CODING IN PROCESS
Anchorage School District v. M.G

3:17-cv-00157 | U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska

None
EDUCATION
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by any Means Necessary (BAMN) v. Granholm

2:06-cv-15024 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Filed Date: Nov. 8, 2006

Case Ongoing

Until and through the latter part of 2006, the University of Michigan's admissions policies allowed for the consideration of race among the factors it considered in making admissions decisions. In 2003, this policy was expressly approved by the United States Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). On November 7, 2006, the people of Michigan approved by majority vote a statewide ballot initiative, Proposal 2, which amended the Michigan Constitution to prohibit discrimination…
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
Mandoza v. Zirkle Fruit

2:00-cv-03024 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington

Filed Date: March 28, 2000

Case Ongoing

On March 28, 2000 several former employees of Zirkle Fruit Company Matson Fruit Company filed a class action lawsuit against their former employers and the Selective Employment Agency, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, alleging that Matson and Zirkle and the engaged in a massive scheme to hire undocumented illegal immigrants for the express purpose of depressing employee wages. Selective was alleged to have acted as a front company in order to shield from…
PUBLIC BENEFITS/GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla

3:14-cv-01253 | U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

Filed Date: March 25, 2014

Case Ongoing

On March 25, 2014, a same-sex couple filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The couple, legally married in another state, asked the District Court to enter an order ruling Article 68 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico, 31 L.P.R.A. § 221, unconstitutional. The law in question limits marriage to unions between one man and one woman. The plaintiffs argued it violates their rights to due process and equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth…