MCI Telecommunications Corp.
3 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (1998–1999)
3 trusted published court opinions across 3 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list MCI Telecommunications Corp. as an employer in 3 distinct federal employment cases between 1998 and 1999.
The most common claims on record were Retaliation, Discrimination, and Harassment.
Cases were filed across 3 states, most often in VA.
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Written decisions across 3 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
MCI Telecommunications Corp. appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
EEOC v. MCI Telecommunications (1999) — Defendant Win. This case involved a dispute between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and MCI Telecommunications over alleged workplace discrimination. The EEOC, which enforces federal employment discrimination laws, brought a lawsuit against the telecommunications company claiming violations of workers' civil rights… Read the ruling.
Sharpe v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. (1998) — Plaintiff Win. An employee at MCI Telecommunications took time off work under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which allows workers to take unpaid leave for serious health conditions or family emergencies. After returning from this protected leave, the company took negative action against the employee. Read the ruling.
Lombard v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. (1998) — Mixed Result. This case involved a discrimination lawsuit filed by an employee named Lombard against MCI Telecommunications Corp. Lombard claimed the company discriminated against them in violation of employment laws. The case was filed in federal court in Ohio in May 1998. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Retaliation, Discrimination, Harassment. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Retaliation, Discrimination and Harassment.
Published opinions span Virginia (1), Ohio (1), North Carolina (1). Virginia is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Virginia rulings, Ohio rulings and North Carolina rulings.
Claim Types
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other employers with published opinions
Browse trusted published opinions involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.