Cases

Re: Dkt. No. 66 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILLIAM H. ORRICK, United States District Judge In the midst of a hypoglycemic attack, Walgreens’s employee Josephina Hernandez grabbed a $1.37 bag of potato chips from the store shelf to stabilize her condition. Walgreens fired her for violating its anti-grazing policy. I must decide if there are material questions of fact fo

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Thomas A. Varían, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This civil action is before the Court on the following motions: (1) plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant’s Affirmative Defense Alleging the EEOC Failed to Conciliate in Good Faith [Doc. 24]; (2) defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 28]; (3) plaintiff and intervening plaintiffs (hereinaf

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES B. ZAGEL, United States District Judge Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought this lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Dorothy Shanks (“Shanks”) against Defendants Staffmark Investment LLC (“Staffmark”) and Sony Electronics (“Sony”) for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Plaintiff reached a settlement with Staff-mark. C

670 F.Supp.2d 858 (2009) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. C.G. SCHMIDT, INC., Defendant. Case No. 08-CV-173. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. November 5, 2009. *861 Brian C. Tyndall, Dennis R. McBride, Jean P. Kamp, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Milwaukee District Office,

OPINION AND ORDER NORGLE, District Judge: Before the court is Plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs motion is granted. Defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. FACTS 1 Plaintiff, the United States Equal

428 F.Supp.2d 11 (2006) Mildred MUSÑOZ RIVERA, et al., Plaintiffs v. WALGREENS CO., et al., Defendants. Civil No. 04-1766 (DRD). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. April 4, 2006. *12 *13 *14 *15 Anibal Escanel

Bjorgen, J. ¶1 The Public Employment Relations Commission (Commission) found that the city of Vancouver *339(City) committed an unfair labor practice by discriminating against Vancouver Police Officers’ Guild (Guild) president Ryan Martin out of animus over his union activities. The City appeals, contending that the Commission (1) improperly applied judicial precedent to

888 F.Supp. 87 (1995) Cherie LUNA, Plaintiff, v. WALGREENS, Defendant. No. 95 C 0183. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. May 30, 1995. Richard S. Mittelman, Morgan, Mittelman & Rapin, Lake Zurich, IL, for plaintiff. Debra L. Duzinskas, Carol Berlin Manzoni, Ross & Hardies, P.C., Chicago, IL, for defendant. <

VINSON, District Judge: The plaintiff in this Title VII employment discrimination case, Cristobal D. Ramirez, represented himself in district court. He survived summary judgment (in part) and proceeded to trial. At the con *1243 elusion of the presentation of his evidence, the defendant, Secretar

FILED COUi i OF AE P r' LS DIM10110M ii 2014 MAR 25 AN S: 50 IN THE COURT OF APPEA

OPINION AND ORDER BESOSA, District Judge. Before the Court is defendants Triple-S Vida- Inc. (“Triple-S Vida”), Triple-S Insurance. Agency (“Triple-S Insurance”) and Triple-S Management Corporations (“Triple-S Management”) (collectively “defendants’O’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (“Rule 56”). (Docket No. 56.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summa

JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the opinion of the court: "State blacklisting laws, enacted largely between 1887 and 1930, were among the first efforts to outlaw retaliatory refusals to hire. These statutes were enacted in about half of the states because employers, in an effort to quash labor organization, created and circulated li

USCA11 Case: 21-10491 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 12/13/2023 Page: 1 of 34 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10491 ____________________ DORIS LAPHAM,

2023 IL App (1st) 230547 FIRST DISTRICT THIRD DIVISION August 30, 2023 No. 1-23-0547 HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, a ) Appeal from the Mutual Legal Reserve Company,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge: In July 2013, Robert Kolinek filed suit against Walgreen Co. (Walgreens) on behalf of a class of similarly situated Walgreens customers. Kolinek alleged that Walgreens had made unsolicited calls to him and other current and former customers on their cellular telephones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U

AMENDED ORDER ROY B. DALTON JR., United States District Judge This cause is before the Court on the following: 1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. 50), filed July 29,2016; and 2. Plaintiff Palermo’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Grunau’s

DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, District Judge. Pro se Plaintiff Pauline Foster (“Plaintiff”), a former employee of Defendant Walgreen Co.1 (“Defendant”), alleges De*617fendant engaged in unlawful employment discrimination because of Plaintiffs race, age, and disability, in violation of Title VII of th

12 F.Supp.2d 34 (1998) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. CARDINAL HEALTH, INC. and Bergen Brunswig Corp., Defendants. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. McKESSON CORP. and Amerisource Health Corp., Defendants. Nos. CIV. A. 98-595, CIV. A. 98-596. United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 31, 1998. *

ORDER CECILIA M. ALTONAGA, District Judge. THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant, Walgreen Co.’s (‘Walgreens[’s]”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) [ECF No. 44], filed on March 4, 2011. In the Motion, Walgreens seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff, Basil Jennings’s (“Jennings[’s]”) claims of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights

679 F.3d 9 (2012) Pamela A. JONES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. WALGREEN CO.; Walgreen Co. Income Protection Plan for Store Managers; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Michael Campbell, Defendants, Appellees. No. 11-1917. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard January 11, 2012. Decided May 10, 2012. *11