Cases

*657ORDER Daisy Washington had worked at Ameriteeh for nearly twenty years when she fell ill, both physically and psychologically, in the summer of 1997. The Ameritech Sickness and Accident Disability Benefit Plan provided her with short-term disability benefits, but the Plan’s administrators had difficulty getting some of Washington’s doctors to provide them with documentation o

285 F.3d 1174 Connie HEMMINGS and Patty Lamphiear, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.TIDYMAN'S INC., a Washington Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.Connie Hemmings and Patty Lamphiear, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Tidyman's Inc., a Washington Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 99-35932. No. 99-35984. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

103 F.3d 535 20 Employee Benefits Cas. 2543, Pens. Plan Guide P 23930XGail SWABACK, individually and on behalf of the estate ofDavid Swaback, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.AMERICAN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Illinois BellCompany, Ameritech Employees Benefit Committee, etal., Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-1183. United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.</

ORDER Willie Walton disputes the amount of his monthly pension benefit from National Integrated Group Pension Plan, a multiem-ployer retirement plan. Walton sued the Plan and its Board of Trustees, claiming what the district court understood to be a challenge to the benefit calculation arising under the Employment Retirement In*329come Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1461. T

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TIFFANY HOLODNAK, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 20-3250 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 7, 14 : SERVICE EM

OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge. Plaintiff Dennis Hilderbrand challenges the National Electrical Benefit Fund’s (NEBF) decision to deny him disability benefits for the period of March 2005 through October 2008. Cross motions for summary judgment are pending. Because the NEBF Trustees failed to consider reliable, contrary evidence submitted by Hil-derbrand, Hilderbrand’s Motion for Summary J

961 F.Supp. 1208 (1997) Hilary ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY n/k/a Ameritech Illinois and Ameritech, Ameritech Sickness and Accident Disability Benefits Plan, and Ameritech Comprehensive Health Care Plan, Defendants. No. 96 C 3286. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. March 26, 1997. *

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Jena McClellan brought suit against her former employer to enforce her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. , as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). The distr

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER John Z. Lee, United.States District Judge Cheri Green seeks judicial review of Sun' Life Assurance Company’s (“Sun Life”) denial of long term disability benefits, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). The parties have cross moved for summary judgment. For the reasons provided herein, the Court grants in part and

Memorandum Opinion Thomas F. Hogan, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Zafar H. Khan filed this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”); the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq., the Civil Rights Attorney’s Award Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Robert W. Gettleman, United States District Judge Plaintiff Haydee Martinez filed a six-count complaint, alleging that her employer, defendant Northwestern University (“Northwestern”), violated the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”), 775 ILCS 5/2-101 et seq., by harassing her on the basis of her sexual orientation (Count I); discriminating against her on the basis of her pregn

ORDER This matter is before the court on appellees’ Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, as well as on the appellants’ Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. We also have responses from the parties to both petitions. Upon consideration, the requests for panel rehearing are granted to the extent of the amendments

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. I. Introduction Plaintiffs-appellants represent a class of retirees (collectively “Plaintiffs”) formerly employed by Sprint-Nextel Corporation (“Sprint”), Embarq Corporation (“Em-barq”), or a predecessor and/or subsidiary company of either Embarq or Sprint (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiffs brought this suit after Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RAVEN JONES, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:25-cv-02104-MAU WTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Raven Jones (“Jones”), proceeding pro se, has filed this suit against her former employer, Defendant WTS International, L

2 F.Supp.2d 1077 (1998) Kim ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. and Ameritech Services, Inc., Defendants. No. IP 93-0420-C M/S. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. January 23, 1998. *1078 *1079 *1080

646 F.3d 461 (2011) Maetta VANCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 08-3568. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued November 29, 2010. Decided June 3, 2011. *465 Diamond Z. Hirschauer (argued), Attorney, Tae Sture, Attorney, Sture Legal Services, Ind

856 F.Supp. 1301 (1994) Willetta WEATHERLY, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, v. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE, Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff. No. 93 C 2248. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June 16, 1994. *1302 Bradley Daniel Birge, Chicago, IL, for Willetta Weatherly. Patrick J. Kilroy, Jr., Caro

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER John Robert Blakey, United States District Judge This is a putative class action brought under the Uniformed Services Employ*694ment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”), which protects service members in their civilian employment. Plaintiff' Mark Duffer was a Continental pilot who also served as a Lieutenant

OPINION & ORDER ALGENON L. MARBLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In its most recent challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, commonly known as “Obamacare,” the State of Ohio takes aim at a lesser-known provision from the law — one designed to stabilize prices in the individual insurance market during the first three years of the Act’s guaranteed-issue .and community-rating

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 15a0066p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ ┐ EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, │