Case law

National Ass'n of Manufacturers v. United States Department of Labor

962 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 24, 1997

The NAM is a qualified prevailing party under the clear language of the EAJA. … CONCLUSION The NAM is a qualified party and entitled to an award under the EAJA.

Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. Scarlett

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 2009

This case’s tangled procedural history begins with a qualified victory for CPN. In Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. … IBCA I clearly raised the issue of Collier’s impact on the Department’s application of the formula.

Evangelou v. District of Columbia

63 F. Supp. 3d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 11, 2014

Plaintiff visited this establishment again on December 6, 2009. … The record does not clearly indicate whether Plaintiff was denied this job, and if so, for what reasons.

Pettiford v. Secretary of the Navy

858 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 2012

Additionally, procedures and policy to use OMPFs for comparison were not established until CY 2000. … However, where regularly scheduled selection boards are tasked with selecting the ‘best and fully qualified’ Marines; remedial boards are tasked with selecting ‘fully qualified’ Marines, as allocation

Klayman v. Fox

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2019

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Smith’s conduct at this meeting “clearly demonstrated and confirmed” that Defendants have engaged in a “gender-based and political vendetta against” him. Id. … Finally, that, in Plaintiff’s view, the Sataki Complaint is “clearly non-meritorious,” as evidenced by the fact that the Florida and Pennsylvania Bars summarily rejected the same charges. Id. at 17 (Am.

Kilby-Robb v. Duncan

77 F. Supp. 3d 164 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 2015

Given that Kreppel was clearly qualified for the position, Kilby-Robb has a high bar to meet in order to show that she was so much more qualified that a jury could reasonably conclude DOE selected Kreppel for discriminatory … But Kilby-Robb has failed to establish that the candidates were not ranked in this manner.

Gaskins v. Runyon

921 F. Supp. 779 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 1994

II To establish a prima facie claim under the Rehabilitation Act, an employee must first establish (1) that she is a “handicapped person,” (2) that she is “otherwise qualified,” and (3) that defendant’s practices which prejudiced … In this regard, the Court believes that defendant clearly treated plaintiff as if her ability to work was substantially limited. 7 .

Niedermeier v. Office of Baucus

153 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 24, 2001

Local Civil Rule 7.1(m) clearly states that it applies to “any nondispositive motion.” LCvR 7.1(m) (emphasis added). … Moreover, even if plaintiff could establish that this evidence was not known to her prior to judgment, a burden she has clearly not met in this case, her proposed amendment for retaliation based on negative job references

Burton v. United States

668 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2009

Experts may be qualified on the basis of their “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,” Fed.R.Evid. 702, and Dr. Genecin is well qualified as an expert in VTE on all five bases. … waiver of sovereign immunity, McNamara v.

In Re the Arbitration of Certain Controversies Between Chromalloy Aeroservices & Arab Republic of Egypt

939 F. Supp. 907 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1996

M/V Sky Reefer, - U.S. ——, -, 115 S.Ct. 2322, 2325 , 132 L.Ed.2d 462 (1995) (holding that, “[W]hen two statutes are capable of coexistence ... it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention … Having established jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(6)(B), the Court does not consider CAS’ other claims to jurisdiction. 2 .

Lockamy v. Truesdale

182 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2001

Lockamy was qualified for the GS-12 position, he did not apply for the position. … As a man in his mid-50s, the plaintiff clearly establishes that he was a member of the protected class because he is over the age of 40. See Compl. at 10. Likewise, Mr.

Payne v. District of Columbia

741 F. Supp. 2d 196 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2010

municipal liability for the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; that the individual defendants enjoy qualified immunity under § 1983; that Payne has failed to allege a prima facie case of hostile work environment … to overcome the individual Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity.

Rutner v. Seamans

365 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 16, 1973

Ball, the letter was worded so as to indicate that “an equally qualified applicant” had been hired. As this was clearly not in accordance with AFR 40-922, par. 11, Dr. … If his qualifications indicate he is clearly better qualified and he is selected to fill the position, the actions will be documented to evidence the superior or special qualifications of the selected candidate. .

Haymon v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2022

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that Defendant McGunigal is entitled to qualified immunity as to Haymon’s procedural due process claims because McGunigal did not “violate any clearly established right.” … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Oliver-Simon v. Nicholson

384 F. Supp. 2d 298 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2005

Circuit has refined this prima facie test for discrimination in non-promotion and failure to hire cases, such that plaintiff must establish: (1) that she belongs to a protected group; (2) that she applied and was qualified … However, this fact does not serve to clearly elevate plaintiffs credentials for the job above all others.

John N. KANGETHE, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant

75 F. Supp. 3d 433 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2014

It is undisputed that he is qualified for the position. … Similarly, Kangethe's temporary promotion was scheduled to end in November 2009 from the moment he was appointed; the expiration of the promotion, then, is clearly not retaliatory. See id. at 4, 15.

Coalition for Common Sense in Government Procurement v. United States

576 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 2008

With that context in mind, the standard for a preliminary injunction is well-established. … The cases cited by the Coalition are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar on the facts. See Hoffmann-Laroche v.

Wright v. Miller

480 F. Supp. 790 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 1979

Clearly, under law firmly established by Eastern Kentucky, supra, plaintiffs lack standing because there is a sufficient degree of speculativeness that the relief requested will remedy the injury claimed by plaintiffs. 4. … It is clearly inappropriate and unjustifiable for a federal court to become the administrator of a nationwide tax enforcement program.

Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2025

Sovereign immunity does not bar this suit. Defendants’ next jurisdictional argument is that they have immunity from this action. … statutory waiver of that immunity.

Scenic America, Inc. v. United States Department of Transportation

983 F. Supp. 2d 170 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 23, 2013

Cir. 2006), which suggests that sovereign immunity cannot be the principle that bars plaintiffs from challenging non-final agency action. … That is enough to establish causation. 3.