Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Natasha Jordan 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
natasha-jordan
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Natasha Jordan

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Aug 21, 2018

Natasha Jordan, Appellant, vs. Bi-State Development Agency, et al., Respondents.

Appellant

Natasha Jordan appealed the dismissal of her discrimination claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) against the Bi-State Development Agency and Lawrence Brew. The trial court dismissed the claims, finding that Bi-State, as an interstate compact, was not subject to the MHRA because its "contributing factor" burden of proof imposed an impermissible unilateral burden compared to the Illinois Human Rights Act's "motivating factor" standard. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the MHRA and IHRA were not "complementary or parallel laws" at the time of filing, thus precluding unilateral application of the MHRA to the interstate compact.