No. 21-5824

Mary Jill Allgeyer v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio, et al.

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-09-29
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights due-process employment employment-discrimination magistrate-review prima-facie protected-class reverse-discrimination standing title-vii wage-disparity
Key Terms:
ERISA DueProcess Securities Privacy
Latest Conference: 2021-11-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Reverse-discrimination

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) fan employee/plaintiff is a member of a racial majority (white female) is she legally considered to be viewed as an unprotected class, stated below, in my reverse discrimination case, by the court? Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Filed June 28, 2021 Case No. 20-3827 Pg. 6 “Where the plaintiff is a member of the racial majority—and therefore not a member of a protected class.” (2) Ifan appellant has direct evidence, is it necessary to prove defendants’ reverse discrimination by using Prima Facie (3) Ledbetter v. Gilley, 385 F.3d 683,69 (6 Cir.2004). Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 2009 Act was a comparison of wages of female to male. When the Plaintiff is white female and works the same position in the | same offices making $20,000-$30,000 less annually than a black | female employee’ counterpart who is similarly situated, will the court } apply my discrimination to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009? | The disparity is the same. | (4) Reverse Discrimination: Does the court recognize reverse | discrimination performed by local government when Minority and | Male leadership has workplace power over older white female? , (5) Will the Supreme Court perform a review of the District Magistrate’s , performance with not abiding with Magistrates duties Rule 73. Magistrate Judges: Trial by Consent; Appeal (a) TRIAL BY CONSENT. ) | | I issued non-consent for Magistrate Bowman, twice on forms during | scheduling and was never approached to fill out a consent form. | i. | This Case is a Case of Public or Great general Interest and asks substantial constitutional questions. ,

Docket Entries

2021-11-08
Petition DENIED.
2021-10-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/5/2021.
2021-10-11
Waiver of right of respondent Cincinnati, et al. to respond filed.
2021-09-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 29, 2021)

Attorneys

Cincinnati, et al.
Lauren C. MaiCity Solicitor, City Cincinnati, Respondent
Lauren C. MaiCity Solicitor, City Cincinnati, Respondent
Mary Jill Allgeyer
Mary Jill Allgeyer — Petitioner
Mary Jill Allgeyer — Petitioner