Kevin Penn v. City of Decatur, Alabama and Justin Rippen
Birmingham, Alabama civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants claiming wrongful arrest, retaliation and excessive for violations of the First and Fourth Amendments.
Demarlo Berry appeals from an order dismissing his third postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed Berry's petition as procedurally barred, without allowing discovery or conducting an evidentiary hearing. Berry supported his petition with declarations under penalty of perjury that, if true, may establish a gateway claim of actual innocence. We conclude
Rochester, New York criminal defense lawyer represented Defendant charged with making a threat against the president, retaliating against a United States judge, retaliating against a federal law enforcement officer, and mailing three threatening communications.
Jacksonville, Florida criminal defense lawyer represented Defendant charged with threatening to murder a federal judge in retaliation for performing his official duties and mailing a threatening letter.
Thomas Cole v. Foxmar, Inc. d/b/a Education and Training Resources
Burlington, Vermont employment law lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant claiming wrongful "retaliation in violation of the Vermont Occupational Safety and Health Act ('VOSHA'), 21 V.S.A. §§ 201-32, and retaliation in violation of the Vermont Earned Sick Time Act ('VESTA'), 21 V.S.A. §§ 481-87,..." Cole v. Foxmar, Inc. (D. Vt. 2022).
Tulsa, Oklahoma civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants claiming that they violated her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by falsely arresting her.
Poorfalchrasel Plaintiffs v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
St. Louis, Missouri civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on employment discrimination theories un Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., for employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.
In order to bring suit in federal district Court under Title VII, a plaintiff mu
Sean Adams, petitioner, was convicted by jury verdict of:
        Murder, a violation of General Statutes Sec. 53a-54a, which provides for a penalty of not less than 25 years nor more than life incarceration (statutorily defined as 60 years); Conspiracy to Commit Murder, violations of C.G.S. Secs. 53a-48 and 53a-54a, which provides for a penalty of not less than on
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma criminal law lawyer represented Defendant charged with violating the civil rights of three pretrial detainees held at the Kay County Detention Center (KCDC).
Washington, DC: Criminal law lawyer represented Defendant charged with stalking.
Ranjith Keerikkattil, age 34, of Catonsville, Maryland, was found guilty of the stalking charge on July 9, 2018, following a trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The Honorable Robert A. Salerno released Keerikkattil following the verdict, pending sentencing. The judge ordered him to appear
Michael A. Caldwell and Robert M. Hahn v. Joseph M. Gasper and Michigan State Police
Grand Rapids, Michigan employment law lawyers represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants on a civil rights violation theory under 28 U.S.C. 1981.
This case is about two employees who were disciplined for misconduct and for disobeying
certain rules when handling the transfer process for a subordinate. They brought suit alleging that
the punishment they received was not justified
Salt Lake City, Utah civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601–54.
This statute prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for taking FMLA leave. 29 U.S.C.
§ 2615(a)(2). We may assume for the sake of argument that the prohibition
would ordinarily apply when an employer adopt
United States of America v. Professional Maintenance Management (PPM)
Baltimore, Maryland civil litigation lawyers represented Defendant accused of discriminated against non-U.S. citizen worked when checking their permissin to work in the United States in violation of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Employers cannot treat employees differently because of citizenship, immigration status, or national origin when verifying their permission to work,â€
