Grissom v. Waterloo Industries, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED AND SUBSTITUTED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
EISELE, District Judge.
Before the Court is defendants Brian Ross’ and John Does I-III’s Motion to Dismiss, filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has responded to this motion, opposing the relief sought. For the reasons expressed in the following opinion, defendants’ motion will be granted.
I
Plaintiffs Complaint (Docket No. 1) seeks to recover from the above-named defendants, as well as defendant Waterloo Industries, Inc. (Waterloo), for various alleged violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Albright v. OliverSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. VinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Busby v. City of OrlandoCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1991
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Morrow v. City of Jacksonville, Ark.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1996
- Allen v. McClendonDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2024
- Carter v. Military Department of ArkansasDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2019
- Hodge v. Twin City TransportationDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2020