Cases

ORDER HARRY S. MATTICE, JR., District Judge. Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude the Expert Testimony of Dr. Richard Tonowski (Doc. 102) and Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Preclude the Expert Report and Opinion Testimony of Dr. David Griffin (Doc. 110). For the reasons discussed herein, the *1039Court will D

EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-Appellant the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought an enforcement action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on behalf of Kristy Sones against her employer, Defendant-Appellant LHC Group, Inc., (LHC). Sones worked as a nurse for the home-health company until she was fired shortly after she had an epileptic s

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Victor A. Bolden, United States District Judge The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission” or “EEOC” or “Plaintiff’) brought this action against Day and Zimmerman NPS, Inc. (“DZNPS” or “Defendant”) under Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”). ECF No. 1. In October of 2012, Gregory Marsh filed a charge

ORDER DENYING NEW BREED’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART NEW BREED’S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART NEW BREED’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW S. THOMAS ANDERSON, District Judge. Before the Court are Defendant New Breed Logistics’ (“New Breed”) Motion for *1006Judgm

ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. This case arises from Defendant Wedco, Inc.’s (“Wedco”) alleged violation of Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VH”). Pending before the Court is Wed-co’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 108) and its Motion to Seal (ECF No. 106) portions of the summary judgment motion. Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has al

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHERYL H. LIPMAN, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 59), filed on November 4, 2011. Defendant filed a Response in Opposition (ECF No. 62) on December 1, 2011. Defendant also filed its own

250 F.Supp.2d 1193 (2003) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. OILGEAR COMPANY, Defendant. No. 8:01 CV 462. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. March 12, 2003. *1194 Nelson G. Alston, Evangelina F. Hernandez, Rita Byrnes Kittle, Joseph H. Mitchell, Gwendolyn Reams, Nancy A. Weeks, Denver, CO, U.S. Equal E

585 F.Supp.2d 1112 (2008) STANDING ROCK HOUSING AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant. No. 1:08-CV-052. United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Southwestern Division. November 10, 2008. *1115 Ripley B. Harwood, Ripley B. Harwood, P.C., Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT ALTRES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FILED DECEMBER 30, 2011 AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT LA RANA HAWAII, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FILED DECEMBER 30, 2011 LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant ALTRES, Inc.’s (“ALTRES”) Motion to Dismiss Complaint Filed December 30, 2011 (“ALTRES Motion”), filed

102 F.Supp.2d 382 (1999) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. E.J. SACCO, INC., Defendant. No. 98-CV-75627-DT. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. August 31, 1999. *383 Ellen G. Ha, Adele Rapport, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Detroit, MI, for plaintiff. Robert M. Ve

KANNE, Circuit Judge. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is apparently dissatisfied with the provision of federal law that places truly private clubs outside its regulatory reach. EEOC seeks to remove this congressionally enacted impediment by interpreting the bona fide private club exemption of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SOTOMAYOR, District Judge. Defendant Doremus & Company (“Doremus”) moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 for summary judgment dismissing this age discrimination complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on behalf of Andrew Quinn (“Quinn”). For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss is denied. BACKGR

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BARBOUR, District Judge. The trial of this case was bifurcated so that the Court would hear the liability issues and later, if the Plaintiffs were successful, consider the issues of reinstatement and back pay. After hearing the evidence pertaining to the liability issues, the Court announced a decision for the Plaintiff but took the case under advisement for rendi

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on a total of four motions for partial summary judgment. The motions have been fully briefed, and the Court deems them suitable for submission without oral argument. Each motion is addressed below. I. Background Plaintiff-Intervenor Elsa Perez worked for Defendant P.C. Iron, Inc. ("PCI") between

820 F.2d 391 Sammie D. FELTON, Petitioner,v.EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Respondent. Appeal No. 87-3065. United States Court of Appeals,Federal Circuit. May 29, 1987. Sammie D. Felton, pro se. Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, M. Susan Burne

703 F.Supp. 1138 (1988) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff v. CHAS. SCHAEFER SONS, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 88-1142. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. December 22, 1988. *1139 Wanda E. Flowers, E.E.O.C., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff. Gerald L. Dorf, and Mitchell Dorf, Rahway, N.J., for de

546 F.Supp. 54 (1982) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 81-72347. United States District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D. June 23, 1982. *55 *56 *57 Dorothy M. Smith, Jan C. Leventer, Detroit, Mi

671 F.Supp. 351 (1987) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 84-702. United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. October 1, 1987. *352 Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., Reginald Sydnor, Carmen R. Matos, E.E.O.C., Philadelphia, Pa., for E.E.O.C. Richard J. A

TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in an action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., as modified by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA

729 F.Supp. 907 (1990) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 87-1227. United States District Court, District of Columbia. January 31, 1990. *908 Douglas A. Gallegos, EEOC, Baltimore District Office, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff. Ri