Skip to main content

DABROWSKI v. ALLISON

W.D. Pa.June 1, 2021No. 1:20-cv-00142
Defendant WinALLISON
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil Rights: Other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Discrimination

Outcome

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed Thomas Lucero's conviction on multiple felony charges including aggravated kidnapping, sexual intercourse without consent, strangulation, and assault. The court rejected Lucero's arguments that his Alford guilty plea was invalid and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

What This Ruling Means

I notice there appears to be a significant error in the case information provided. The case title indicates "DABROWSKI v. ALLISON" and lists this as an employment discrimination dispute, but the excerpt describes a completely different Montana Supreme Court criminal case involving Thomas Lucero and serious felony charges including kidnapping and sexual assault. These details don't match at all - one appears to be an employment law case while the excerpt describes a criminal conviction case. Without accurate case information that corresponds to the title and employment law context, I cannot provide a reliable summary for workers. Could you please verify the correct case details? If this is meant to be about the Dabrowski v. Allison employment discrimination case, I would need the proper excerpt and case details to write an accurate summary that would be helpful for workers understanding their rights.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.