Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Matthew J. Ellis, Defendant, and The Washington University in St. Louis Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
matthew-j-ellis-defendant-and-the-washington-university-in-st-louis
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment Law
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving Matthew J. Ellis, Defendant, and The Washington University in St. Louis

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Dr. Li Lin sued Washington University for retaliatory discharge under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) after her employment was terminated following requests for disability accommodations. A jury found in favor of Dr. Lin against Washington University, but not against her supervisor. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the trial court erred in submitting an incomplete verdict director instruction that omitted an essential element of the retaliation claim. The court also clarified that requesting a disability accommodation is a protected activity under the MHRA and that the McGinnis Doctrine did not apply to exonerate the university.