Legal Opinion
Doe v. City of Chicago
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided November 16, 1994No. 94 C 4122PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CONLON, District Judge.
John and Jane Doe (collectively “plaintiffs”) sue the City of Chicago (“the city”), the City of Chicago Department of Police (“the police department”), Dr. James J. Bransfield, and U.S. Occupational Health, Inc. (“USOH”) (collectively “defendants”). Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (“the complaint”) alleges that defendants tested plaintiffs for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”) after plaintiffs applied for positions as Chicago police officers. Plaintiffs claim that their applications were rejected after plaintiffs tested positive…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Guckenberger v. Boston UniversityDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1997
- Lane v. Maryhaven Center of HopeDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1996
- Dunlap v. Association of Bay Area GovernmentsDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1998
- Purvis v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Kansas · 2003
- Johnson v. New York HospitalDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1995
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.