Jeremie Montgomery v. AFL-CIO
M.D. Tennessee · Nov 14, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- M.D. Tennessee
- Record ID
- jeremie-montgomery-v-afl-cio-2025-11-14
- Observed outcome
- The court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims of race discrimination and retaliation.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified that the pro se plaintiff submitted multiple fabricated legal citations in his filings. The court explicitly addressed these non-existent cases in its memorandum, noting that the citations were incorrect or could not be located, and preserved them in the official record while clarifying their invalidity.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'EEOC v. Ironworkers Local 28, 2012 WL 4339035 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)' as supporting authority; court stated the citation was incorrect and not located. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Operating Engineers Local 406 JATC, 271 NLRB 1396 (1984)' to support union liability; court found citation incorrect/non-existent and could not locate the case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'IBEW Local 212 (Cincinnati JATC), 331 NLRB 152 (2000)' to argue JATC liability; court determined the citation was incorrect/non-existent.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. Tennessee, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Employment
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation (R&R) regarding cross-motions for summary judgment. The court overruled the plaintiff's objections, sustained the defendant's partial objection, and granted summary judgment for both defendants.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court record implies the use of external research tools by the pro se litigant.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.