Case law

McFadden v. BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP

611 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 29, 2010

See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (prohibiting discrimination ―against a qualified individual‖); 42 U.S.C. § 12112(8) (defining ―qualified individual‖ as one ―who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential … Under these circumstances Hahn clearly ―held, filled, or occupied‖ the receptionist position. McFadden‘s argument in the alternative that the receptionist position was ―soon to be vacant‖ is a non-starter.

Becker v. Federal Communications Commission

95 F.3d 75 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 13, 1996

[T]he test of whether a licensee has fulfilled its obligations under Section 312(a)(7) is one of reasonableness.... íj; sjí íjí While the statute does not establish a precise or definite standard, ... we believe it is unreasonable … Because the equal opportunity requirements “forbid any kind of discrimination by a station between competing candidates,” however, channeling clearly implicates the equal opportunity provision of section 315(a).

Xingru Lin v. DC (REDACTED)

47 F.4th 828 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 2, 2022

District of Columbia, 223 A.3d 884, 898 (D.C, 2020) (citation 7 On remand, the district court should first consider whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity or any other relevant privilege from suit they … might assert, Because qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” Mitchell v.

Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes

91 F.2d 303 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 10, 1937

That injury, however, is, so far as the government is concerned, clearly consequential and indirect, as we have pointed out.” In Greenwood County v. … Moreover, the court clearly stated that it expressed “no opinion on the relevancy or effect of the evidence or otherwise upon the merits.”

Lathram, Layne v. Snow, John

336 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2003

To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory non-promotion, the plaintiff must show that: ‘‘(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he applied for and was qualified for an available position; (3) despite his qualifications … The government contends that there was no evidence that Lathram had been performing such work, but it is clearly 4 See generally 5 C.F.R. §§ 6.1, 6.2 (describing Schedule A appointments).

James E. Akins v. Federal Election Commission

101 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 3, 1997

Congress clearly intended voters to have access to the information political committees were obliged to report. … Indeed, the General Counsel’s brief advised that AIPAC did not qualify because it apparently receives certain contributions from corporations. .

Syncor Intl Corp v. Shalala, Donna E.

127 F.3d 90 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 28, 1997

Cir. 1987) ("spectrum between a clearly interpretive rule and a clearly substantive one is a hazy continuum"); General Motors Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 742 F.2d 1561, 1565 (D.C. … macy Guideline; Criteria for Determining When to Register as a Drug Establishment," it said that "the criteria for registration as a drug establishment for nuclear pharmacies should be the same as those for traditional

Reyes v. Sessions

342 F. Supp. 3d 141 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 28, 2018

To establish standing, a plaintiff must allege three elements: (1) an "injury in fact," which is "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent"; (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged provision … Here, the history and stated purpose of the Exchange Act clearly indicate that the statute was primarily intended to prevent economic harm to investors.

Central United Life Insurance v. Sylvia Burwell

827 F.3d 70 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 1, 2016

. § 201 (“PHSA”), establishes coverage requirements for all health  3 insurance plans except those it deems “excepted benefits.” … So long as these conditions are met, the plan qualifies as an excepted benefit. See id. § 300gg-21(c)(2) (exemption applies “if all of the following conditions are met”).

In Re Janet G. Mullins (Tamposi Fee Application)

84 F.3d 1439 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 1996

- qualifies as a subject under the Act. … As we have often observed, the fee petitioner bears the burden of establishing all elements of her entitlement. See, e.g., Shultz, 8 F.3d at 850 .

Estate of Klieman by and Through Kesner v. Palestinian Auth.

923 F.3d 1115 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 14, 2019

Second, the court properly gave weight to the uncertainty in the wake of Goodyear, so clearly reflected in the passage quoted above from a leading treatise on procedure. … And the emotional suffering felt by forum residents and (perhaps) foreseen by the attackers cannot without more qualify as the relevant “effect.”

Gov't of Guam v. United States

341 F. Supp. 3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 5, 2018

Cir. 2014) (suggesting that whether a defendant is liable must be established before determining the scope of that liability). … Again, the parties clearly contemplated Guam's compliance with the 2004 Consent Decree as settling and satisfying only the CWA claims that the EPA had brought against Guam.

Coalition for the Environment, St. Louis Region, Missourians for Safe Energy, and Crawdad Alliance v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America, Union Electric Company, Intervenor. New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America, Carolina Power & Light Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, Intervenors

795 F.2d 168 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 11, 1986

The short and sufficient answer is that those regulations were not a construction of the statute, but an exercise of discretionary authority under the statute, and they were not immune from later revision. 24 We therefore … Sec. 2133 (b) (1982), which provides that the Commission shall issue licenses to applicants "who are equipped to observe ... such safety standards ... as the Commission may by rule establish."

No. 91-3313

24 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 20, 1994

He explained to the court that, even though the prosecutor's question had related to the non-immunized post-arrest statement, Nealis's answer related to the immunized sessions, as the information about Stewart had not been … offered in Barden's statement on December 17 but in an immunized session at a later time.

Wilkes-Barre Hospital Co., LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

857 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 19, 2017

But a union’s one-time failure to challenge an employer’s unilateral change does not qualify as an established practice. See Brewers & Maltsters, 414 F.3d at 45. … The Hospital contends that the language of the 2011 CBA establishes that the Union clearly and unmistakably waived the nurses’ right to post-expiration longevity-based increases.

Railroad Yardmasters of America v. Robert O. Harris, Chairman, National Mediation Board

721 F.2d 1332 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 16, 1983

anticipation of the 10:15 a.m. resignation of the only other member, I nonetheless conclude that what occurred in this case simply does not comport with what the statute says, and that the breadth of its sanctioning by the panel establishes … Clearly, the majority’s reading of the delegation provision falls well outside this limited efficiency-minded purpose. . David B. Lilly Co. v.

Sanders Bros. Radio Station v. Federal Communications Commission

106 F.2d 321 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 11, 1939

These reasons were clearly adequate to present an issue of “economic injury to an existing station through the establishment of an additional station * * * ” and that statement of issue is sufficient to furnish proper grounds … court to review the evi *325 dence for the purpose of making findings 10 or of justifying findings not made. 11 In its brief the Commission contends that since both appellant and the intervener were found to be financially qualified

Iowa v. Federal Communications Commission

218 F.3d 756 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 27, 2000

need serve a specified clientele indifferently to qualify as a common carrier .... … Before this court, the Commission first claims that the argument was not clearly enough presented before the agency to elicit an answer.

O'BRIEN v. United States

99 F.2d 368 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 11, 1938

Wc have said in a number of cases that distinct and different crimes independent of that charged may not be used to establish guilt. Borum v. United States, 61 App.D.C. 4, 6 , 56 F.2d 301 . … Likewise in the Johnson Case, 38 App.D.C. 347 , we held .the provisions of the federal code giving the jury the right to qualify its verdict by the addition of the words “without capital punishment”, did not apply in the

Fraternal Order of Police v. United States

173 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 1999

But here Congress has incorporated a set of classifications made by state legislators who clearly regarded the felons' conduct as calling for greater severity than the misdemeanants'--whether because of moral oppro- brium … The second interest has clearly not attained the status of a fundamental right.