Gilbert v. Milton Hershey School
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Milton Hershey School. (See memo for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 8/30/17. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MILTON HERSHEY SCHOOL,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1798
(Chief Judge Conner)
Plaintiff Kierstin Gilbert (“Gilbert”) commenced this action against her
employer asserting claims of race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, and the Pennsylvania
Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 PA. STAT. AND CONS. STAT. ANN. §§ 951-963.
(See Doc. 12). Defendant Milton Hershey School (“Milton Hershey”) moves to
dismiss Gilbert‟s amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). (Doc. 14). For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the motion in
part and deny the motion in part.
Factual Background & Procedural History
Milton Hershey operates a hair salon to accommodate the needs of its
students. (Doc. 12 ¶¶ 13-14). The salon is located on Milton Hershey‟s campus and
is called the Spartan Styles Shop (“Spartan Styles” or “the salon”). (Id.) Gilbert
was hired by Milton Hershey to work at the salon as a part-time hair stylist on or
about April 4, 2012. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12). As a part-time stylist, Gilbert is permitted to
work four days per week, for a maximum of twenty hours. (Id. ¶ 15). Gilbert is
African American and her direct supervisor, Tiffany Renninger (“Renninger”), is
Caucasian. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 18-19). Six other part-time stylists work at the salon and are
supervised by Renninger—five are African American and one is Caucasian. (Id. ¶¶
Gilbert asserts that African American female students were “denied proper
hair care services and hair care products” at Spartan Styles at the direction of
Milton Hershey. (See id. ¶¶ 28-30). Gilbert further avers that this discrimination
toward the students limited Gilbert‟s ability to perform her job and her access to
materials. (Id.) Gilbert first discussed her concerns about the “disparate
treatment” of African American female students with Renninger and Tiffany
Guimond (Renninger‟s boss), but her concerns were ignored. (Id. ¶¶ 31-32, 36). In
September 2013, Gilbert complained in writing about the issue to Elliott Robinson,
Vice President of Administration at Milton Hershey. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 50).
Gilbert avers that Milton Hershey took “adverse actions” against her after
she complained about the inadequacy of services provided to African American
female students at the salon. (Id. ¶¶ 39, 47). Specifically, Gilbert alleges that she
was denied a promotion to “Designated Manager.” (Id. ¶¶ 41, 47). Gilbert avers that
she was fully qualified for the position, but Renninger promoted Danielle
Linebaugh (“Linebaugh”), the only Caucasian part-time stylist. (Id. ¶¶ 45-46, 85-86).
As “Designated Manager,” Linebaugh worked additional hours, received additional
training, and had more duties at the salon. (Id. ¶¶ 42-44, 52-53). Gilbert argues that
Linebaugh was the “least qualified” for this position but was promoted because she
is Caucasian. (Id. ¶¶ 87-88).
Gilbert and the other African American stylists met with Renninger on
January 8, 2014, to discuss Linebaugh‟s promotion. (Id. ¶ 55). On January 30, 2014,
Gilbert complained to Milton Hershey‟s human resources department about
Linebaugh‟s promotion. (Id. ¶ 48). Approximately five weeks later, Gilbert received
a performance evaluation with negative comments. (Id. ¶ 59). According to the
allegata, Gilbert‟s evaluation included negative comments because she complained
about “discriminatory policies.” (Id. ¶ 60). In contrast, Gilbert‟s prior performance
evaluation in August 2013 contained only positive comments. (Id. ¶ 61).
Gilbert filed charges with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) on August 6, 2014. (Docs. 14-2, 17-6). She dual-filed her
charges with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”). (Doc. 142). The EEOC sent Gilbert a right-to-sue letter on May 23, 2016, (Doc. 14-1), which
Gilbert received on June 1, 2016, (Doc. 12 ¶ 2). On August 29, 2016, Gilbert
commenced the instant action. (Doc. 1). She subsequently filed an amended
complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the
PHRA. (Doc. 12). Milton Hershey moves to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 14). The motion is
fully briefed and ripe for disposition.1
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the
dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
court must “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable
reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Phillips v. Cty. of
Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Pinker v. Roche Holdings, Ltd.,
292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002)).
Federal notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide “the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Phillips, 515 F.3d at 232 (alteration in original) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To test the sufficiency of the complaint, the court conducts
a three-step inquiry. See Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130-31 (3d Cir.
2010). In the first step, “the court must „tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must
Milton Hershey alternatively seeks summary judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The court declines to exercise its discretion to convert
Milton Hershey‟s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See
Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454, 1463 at n.11 (3d Cir. 1992).
Also pending before the court is Gilbert‟s motion to strike. (Doc. 16). As a
threshold matter, we note that Gilbert never filed a brief supporting her motion.
Local Rule 7.5 provides that the court must deem a party‟s motion withdrawn if the
party fails to support its motion with briefing. LOCAL RULE OF COURT 7.5. We
further note that all of the arguments made in Gilbert‟s motion to strike are moot
per the court‟s decisions under Rule 12 herein.
plead to state a claim.‟” Id. at 130 (alteration in original) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009)). Next, the factual and legal elements of a claim must be
separated; well-pleaded facts are accepted as true, while mere legal conclusions
may be disregarded. Id. at 131-32; see Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203,
210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). Once the court isolates the well-pleaded factual allegations, it
must determine whether they are sufficient to show a “plausible claim for relief.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. A
claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts “that allow the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) classifies a statute of limitations claim as
an affirmative defense that must be pled in an answer to the complaint. F ED. R.
CIV. P. 8(c). Nevertheless, the court may dismiss a complaint as time-barred under
Rule 12(b)(6) if “the time alleged in the statement of a claim shows that the cause of
action has not been brought within the statute of limitations.” Robinson v.
Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 135 (3d Cir. 2002); see Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran &
Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384 n.1 (3d Cir. 1994). This deficiency must be apparent on
the face of the pleading. See Rycoline Prods., Inc. v. C & W Unlimited, 109 F.3d 883,
886 (3d Cir. 1997).
Courts should grant leave to amend before dismissing a curable pleading in
civil rights actions. See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc.,
482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108
(3d Cir. 2002). Courts need not grant leave to amend sua sponte in dismissing non5
civil rights claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fletcher-Harlee Corp., 482 F.3d at 25253, but leave is broadly encouraged “when justice so requires,” FED. R. CIV. P.
Milton Hershey asserts two principal arguments in support of its motion to
dismiss: first that Gilbert‟s amended complaint is time-barred, and second that
Gilbert‟s allegations, even accepted as true, fail to establish an entitlement to relief
under Title VII and the PHRA.
Milton Hershey argues that Gilbert‟s amended complaint should be
dismissed in its entirety because Gilbert failed to file her original complaint within
the period mandated by Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). The enforcement
scheme established under Title VII contemplates a two-tier review process. Before
applying to federal courts for relief, potential claimants must submit their claims to
the appropriate state and federal agencies, in this case, the PHRC and the EEOC.
See id. § 2000e-5(c), (d). Following termination of the agencies‟ review, which is
often indicated by issuance of a right-to-sue letter, the claimant may file an action in
federal district court. See id. § 2000e-16(c).
Should the claimant choose to file an action in federal court, she must do so
within 90 days of receipt of her right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. See id. § 2000e5(f)(1). The 90-day period commences after either the claimant or her attorney
receives the right-to-sue letter, whichever happens first. See Mosel v. Hills Dept.
Store, Inc., 789 F.2d 251, 252 & n.1; Khazzaka v. Univ. of Scranton, No. 3:01-CV-211,
2001 WL 1262320, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2001) (citing Irwin v. Dep‟t of Veteran
Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 92 (1990)). Courts have construed this 90-day requirement as a
statute of limitations, rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite. Seitzinger v.
Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 165 F.3d 236, 239-40 (3d Cir. 1999). As such, the
defendant must prove each element of the statute of limitations defense, “including
the date that the limitations period commenced.” Baker v. Gichner Shelter Sys.,
No. 1:12-CV-2014, 2013 WL 3863941, at *4 (M.D. Pa. July 23, 2013) (quoting Vazquez
v. Caesar‟s Paradise Stream Resort, 524 F. App‟x 831, 834 (3d Cir. 2013)
In the matter sub judice, Milton Hershey has not met its burden. Milton
Hershey avers simply that the EEOC issued Gilbert‟s right-to-sue letter on May 23,
2016, and that the limitations period began to run three days later making Gilbert‟s
original complaint five days late. (See Docs. 14-1, 15 at 7-8). Absent evidence to the
contrary, the court will presume that a plaintiff received her right-to-sue letter three
days after the EEOC mailed it. See Seitzinger, 165 F.3d at 239 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 6(e), now Rule 6(d)). This presumption, however, is rebuttable by minimal
evidence. Vazquez, 524 F. App‟x at 833-34. Gilbert contends that she did not
receive the right-to-sue letter until June 1, 2016, making her complaint timely. (See
Doc. 12 ¶ 2). The court must accept as true the receipt date alleged by Gilbert. See
Khazzaka, 2001 WL 1262320, at *2; Baker, 2013 WL 3863941, at *5. The court will
deny Milton Hershey‟s motion to dismiss Gilbert‟s amended complaint on
timeliness grounds without prejudice to Milton Hershey‟s right to reassert the
defense as appropriate following discovery.
Gilbert’s Discrimination and Retaliation Claims
Milton Hershey argues that Gilbert‟s discrimination and retaliation claims
should be dismissed because Gilbert did not suffer an adverse employment action—
a necessary element to establish a prima facie case for both claims. The court will
first address Gilbert‟s discrimination claims.
Discrimination Under Title VII and PHRA2
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer “to
fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate
against any individual with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment, because of such individual‟s race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must prove: (1)
she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she
suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances of the adverse
action give rise to an inference of discrimination. Kimes v. Univ. of Scranton, 126 F.
Supp. 3d 477, 494 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 198 F.3d 403,
410-11 (3d Cir. 1999)).
Milton Hershey does not dispute that Gilbert is a member of a protected class
because of her race and that she was qualified for her position as a part-time stylist
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that such
dual claims are properly analyzed under the same legal standard because
“Pennsylvania courts . . . generally interpret the PHRA in accord with its federal
counterparts.” Rinehimer v. Cemcolift, Inc., 292 F.3d 375, 382 (3d Cir. 2002); see
also Syed v. YWCA of Hanover, 906 F. Supp. 2d 345, 354 (M.D. Pa. 2012). Hence, the
discussion of Gilbert‟s race discrimination claims applies coextensively to Count I
(Title VII) and Count II (PHRA) of the amended complaint.
at Spartan Style. (See Doc. 14 at 9-12; Doc. 12 ¶¶ 10-11). The issue is whether
Gilbert suffered adverse employment action, to wit: the denial of promotion to
“Designated Manager,” the receipt of negative comments in her performance
evaluation, or the denial of materials to perform her job duties. If she did suffer an
adverse employment action, then the court must examine whether the
circumstances surrounding the adverse action give rise to an inference of
discrimination. We will examine each alleged adverse action separately.3
Denial of Promotion to “Designated Manager”
The law is well settled that denial of a promotion constitutes an adverse
employment action under Title VII. See, e.g., Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524
U.S. 742, 761 (1998); Barnes v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 598 F. App‟x 86, 90 (3d Cir.
2015) (nonprecedential). Gilbert avers that the “Designated Manager” position was
associated with an opportunity for increased duties, hours, and training. (See Doc.
12 ¶¶ 41-44). Gilbert further contends that she was denied the promotion after she
spoke out against unequal services being provided to African American female
students, and that the part-time stylist promoted to the “Designated Manager”
position was the only non-African American stylist at the salon and had the least
amount of experience. (See id. ¶¶ 39, 42, 46, 88).
The court finds, based on the allegations set forth above, that Gilbert
adequately alleges an adverse employment action in the form of denial of promotion
Milton Hershey also moves to dismiss the amended complaint on the
ground that Gilbert attempts to allege disparate impact in her working conditions in
a manner that is beyond the scope of her EEOC complaint. (See Doc. 15 at 18-19).
The court‟s review of the amended complaint reveals no such attempt. Thus,
Milton Hershey‟s disparate impact concerns are moot.
and facts to support an inference of discrimination. Gilbert has satisfied her burden
of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, shifting the burden to Milton
Hershey to articulate one or more legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationales for its
decision. Milton Hershey, however, does not present a single nondiscriminatory
rationale as to why it promoted Linebaugh over the other stylists, including Gilbert.
It argues only that the “Designated Manager” position did not constitute a
promotion, an argument not suited for resolution at the pleading stage.4 We will
deny Milton Hershey‟s motion to dismiss Gilbert‟s race discrimination claim based
on denial of this promotion.
Negative Comments in Performance Evaluation
Criticism of an employee‟s work performance does not constitute an adverse
employment action unless it effects “a material change in the terms or conditions”
of an individual‟s employment. See Mieczkowski v. York City Sch. Dist., 414 F.
App‟x 441, 447 (3d Cir. 2011) (nonprecedential). Even if the court assumes that the
comments in Gilbert‟s March 6, 2014 performance evaluation are indeed “negative,”
Gilbert does not allege any changes in the terms or conditions of her employment
after the evaluation—let alone any material changes. (See Doc. 12 ¶¶ 59-60). She
asserts only that her request for a follow-up meeting regarding her evaluation was
Milton Hershey argues that the “Designated Manager” position does not
exist, thus precluding Gilbert from claiming that she suffered an adverse
employment action. (See Doc. 15 at 10). Milton Hershey‟s sole support for this
argument is Renninger‟s Affidavit, (Doc. 7), which the court declines to consider at
this procedural juncture. See In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 822 F.3d
125, 133-34 (3d Cir. 2016); Frederick Hart & Co. v. Recordgraph Corp., 169 F.2d 580,
581 (3d Cir. 1948); Piazza v. Lakkis, No. 3:11-CV-2130, 2012 WL 2007112, at *4 n.2
(M.D. Pa. June 5, 2012).
denied. (See id. ¶ 66). These assertions are plainly insufficient to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination. The court will grant Milton Hershey‟s motion to
dismiss Gilbert‟s race discrimination claim premised on comments in her
Denial of Materials to Perform Job Duties
The court need not determine whether denial of materials to perform job
duties constitutes an adverse employment action because we find that Gilbert has
not alleged facts giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Gilbert avers
cursorily that she was denied “the materials to perform her job duties” on account
of her race. (Doc. 12 ¶¶ 84, 95). But she does not describe what those materials
were, or why they are necessary to perform the job duties of a part-time stylist.
Gilbert contends only that African American female students were denied certain
services and products, and that this impacted Gilbert‟s ability to provide services
and products to those students. (See id. ¶¶ 28-30). Gilbert also suggests that all of
the other part-time stylists were denied these materials. (See id. ¶ 33). Gilbert‟s
conclusory allegata do not satisfy Rule 12 scrutiny. The court will grant Milton
Hershey‟s motion to dismiss Gilbert‟s race discrimination claim reliant on the
denial of materials.
Retaliation Under Title VII
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must
allege: (1) that she engaged in a protected activity; (2) that she suffered an adverse
employment action; and (3) that there was a causal connection between the
protected activity and the adverse employment action. See Carvalho-Grevious v.
Del. State Univ., 851 F.3d 249, 257 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing Moore v. City of Phila., 461
F.3d 331, 340-41 (3d Cir. 2006)). An employee engages in protected activity when
she opposes an employment practice prohibited by Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e3(a); see also Moore, 461 F.3d at 341. Opposition of practices other than those
prohibited under Title VII does not constitute protected activity. See LambBowman v. Del. State Univ., 39 F. App‟x 748, 750-51 (3d Cir. 2002) (nonprecedential);
Hatcher v. Conifer Realty LLC, No. 1:04-CV-1872, 2007 WL 3237518, at *4 (M.D. Pa.
Oct. 30, 2007) (Conner, J.). To establish an adverse employment action in the
retaliation context, Gilbert must show that the act would dissuade a reasonable
employee “from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Daniels v.
School Dist. of Phila., 776 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe
Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67-68 (2006)).
Gilbert identifies two events in support of her Title VII retaliation claim: the
denial of promotion and negative comments in a performance evaluation. (See Doc.
12 ¶¶ 41, 59-60). Gilbert‟s opposition activities, prior to the denial of promotion,
related to the alleged discrimination aimed at African American female students.
(See Doc. 12 ¶¶ 28-31, 36, 39, 50). This does not qualify as protected activity under
Title VII because Gilbert‟s opposition was not in response to unlawful employment
practices by Milton Hershey. The negative comments occurred after Gilbert
complained to human resources of Linebaugh‟s promotion (an arguably protected
activity), (see id. ¶ 48), but they do not amount to an adverse employment action. As
explained supra, Gilbert does not aver that anything changed after her evaluation.
The court will grant Milton Hershey‟s motion to dismiss Gilbert‟s Title VII
Retaliation Under PHRA
Courts analyze PHRA retaliation claims under the same framework as Title
VII retaliation claims. See Daniels, 776 F.3d at 192-93; Marra v. Phila. Hous. Auth.,
497 F.3d 286, 300 (3d Cir. 2007). But unlike Title VII retaliation claims, PHRA
retaliation claims do not require a plaintiff to oppose an employment practice to
qualify as protected activity. See 43 PA. STAT. AND CONS. STAT. ANN. §§ 955(d). The
PHRA contemplates a broader array of protected activity than Title VII, including:
opposition to a labor organization denying full and equal membership rights on
account of race, 43 PA. STAT. AND CONS. STAT. ANN. § 955(c); opposition to a person
attempting to evict an occupant of any housing accommodation before termination
of a lease because of pregnancy or the birth of a child, id. § 955(h)(1)(1.1); and
opposition to an owner of any public accommodation denying privileges of such
public accommodation on account of race, id. § 955(i)(1).
Gilbert asserts that the same two employment actions described supra
sustain her claim for unlawful retaliation under the PHRA. She again fails to
articulate a prima facie case. Although Gilbert‟s opposition to the alleged
discrimination aimed at African American female students could potentially qualify
as protected activity under the PHRA‟s public accommodation provision, see 43 PA.
STAT. AND CONS. STAT. ANN. § 955(i)(1), Gilbert fails to aver sufficient facts from
which the court could conclude that Milton Hershey, a private school, would qualify
as a “public accommodation” as defined by the Act, see id. § 954(l).5 Gilbert asserts
no other facts to suggest that her opposition activity prior to the denial of promotion
embodied a protected activity under the PHRA, and as already explained above, the
negative comments did not effect an adverse employment action. The court will
grant Milton Hershey‟s motion to dismiss Gilbert‟s PHRA retaliation claim.6
Leave to Amend
Gilbert‟s Title VII retaliation claim against Milton Hershey, to the extent it is
premised on opposition to discrimination against students, is legally incurable and
will be dismissed with prejudice. The court harbors moderate doubt concerning
Gilbert‟s ability to cure the remaining deficiencies identified in this memorandum,
particularly given that this matter presents on an amended complaint.
Nonetheless, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals requires courts to grant leave to
amend in civil rights cases when a curative amendment is conceivable. See
Fletcher-Harlee Corp., 482 F.3d at 251; Grayson, 293 F.3d at 108. To the extent
We assume arguendo that Gilbert intends to invoke the public
accommodation provision of the PHRA by averring that she suffered “illegal
retaliation” for “asserting the rights of black students to have equal access to
services.” (See Doc. 12 ¶¶ 125, 127). We note that if Gilbert elects to file a second
amended complaint and base her retaliation claim on the PHRA public
accommodation provision, she will be presenting a novel cause of action that has
not yet been addressed by either the Third Circuit or the Pennsylvania courts. See
Kopko v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, No. 14-1290, 2014 WL 5365023, at *4 & n.4
(E.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2014).
Milton Hershey also moves to dismiss Gilbert‟s retaliation claims on the
ground that Gilbert makes “new allegations regarding retaliation” that are outside
of the scope of her EEOC charge and therefore do not relate back to her original
complaint. See Doc. 15 at 19-21. As explained above, Gilbert has failed to allege a
prima facie claim for retaliation under either Title VII or the PHRA. Hence, Milton
Hershey‟s argument regarding scope of the EEOC retaliation charge is moot.
Gilbert‟s claims are factually rather than legally flawed, the court will grant Gilbert
a final opportunity to amend her pleading with respect to the claims dismissed
herein, as more fully articulated in the forthcoming order.
The court will grant in part and deny in part Milton Hershey‟s motion (Doc.
14) to dismiss. An appropriate order shall issue.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
August 30, 2017
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.
Why Is My Information Online?