Case law

Chappell-Johnson v. Bair

574 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2008

employer consciously selected a less-qualified candidate.” 156 F.3d at 1294. … It is otherwise undisputed that neither interviewer believed Chappell-Johnson to be the best qualified candidate, and indeed, that both agreed Little was better qualified for the job.

Levinson v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2020

The Court qualified him as an expert on Iran, its economy and politics, and its sponsorship of terrorism. Clawson Hrg. Tr. 121:2–5. … As a result, “a plaintiff that offers proof sufficient to establish a waiver of foreign sovereign immunity under § 1605A(a) has also established entitlement to relief as a matter of federal law” if the plaintiff is a citizen

Smith v. Napolitano

626 F. Supp. 2d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 2009

“The burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 . … This argument is devoid of merit, as the evidence clearly demonstrates that there was not a separate GS 15 position distinct from the VA 228 position.

MCI Communications Corp. v. United States

26 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 3, 1998

Taxpayers carry the burden of establishing that Congress clearly authorized the benefits or deductions they seek. New Colonial Ice Co. v. … (c) QUALIFIED BUSINESS CREDITS.

United States v. Tobin

195 F. Supp. 588 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 1961

Privileges and Immunities Attaching to the Requested Documents. … The instances are few where absolute immunities have been judicially created.

White v. Fraternal Order of Police

707 F. Supp. 579 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 1989

cannot defeat the qualified privilege in this case. … The undisputed facts in this case establish plaintiff clearly was afforded opportunities and courtesies which were not being afforded to other individuals whose urine tested positive, regardless of whether plaintiff was aware

Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa v. Norton

217 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2002

Pursuant to this delegation of authority to the DOI, BIA promulgated regulations establishing procedures for federal recognition of Indian groups as Indian tribes. … . § 83 (2001). , These regulations enable any Indian group seeking acknowledgment by DOI to apply for federal recognition with the BIA, thereby qualifying for federal protection, services and benefits.

Morton v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSING AUTHORITY

720 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2010

Mem.”) at 3; 1 for failure to allege facts sufficient to establish claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress against the defendants, id. at 6-9 ; and based on governmental immunity from *4 liability for punitive … Morton has alleged a qualifying continuing tort; however, because Ms.

Brown v. District of Columbia

919 F. Supp. 2d 105 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2013

In addition, defendants contend that plaintiffs individual capacity claims against President Sessoms should be dismissed “because he was acting within the scope of his authority and therefore has qualified immunity.” … But even drawing all reasonable inferences from those allegations in her favor, plaintiff fails to provide any support for her conclusory allegation that she was “equally, if not more qualified than [Professor] McLain, based

Rothe Development, Inc. v. Department of Defense

107 F. Supp. 3d 183 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2015

See 15 U.S.C. § 637(m) (establishing procurement program for woman-owned small businesses); id. § 657f (establishing procurement program for small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans); id. § 657a (establishing … (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 43  Moreover, the record evidence clearly shows “that qualified, eligible minority- owned firms are excluded from

United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

337 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2004

Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 666-667 (4th Cir.2001)("In order to establish ... the scheme to defraud, the Government must prove that the defendants acted with the specific intent to defraud, which may be inferred from the totality … "Defendants, having been hailed into court in the earlier litigation, were clearly not exercising their right to petition the government."

Buttell v. American Podiatric Medical Ass'n

700 F. Supp. 592 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 1, 1988

Plaintiff cannot sustain his burden of establishing discriminatory motive merely by showing, without more, that he was better qualified than the person who replaced him. … Of the four elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, only the second (plaintiff was “qualified”) and fourth (plaintiff was replaced by someone not in the protected group) are at issue in this

Boritz v. United States

685 F. Supp. 2d 113 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2010

As the IRS’ mailings and notices “result[ed] in actual notice without prejudicial delay (as was clearly the case here),” the Court finds that the IRS has “[met] the conditions of § 6212(a).” … There is no mention of sovereign immunity or of the special status of the government as a litigant. Under settled law, ... this statute does not waive federal sovereign immunity."); Dunn & Black v.

Dastmalchian v. Department of Justice

71 F. Supp. 3d 173 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 20, 2014

Cir. 1978) (venue must be established as to each cause of action). Venue for a Bivens claim is governed by the general venue rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). See Gonzalez v. Holder, 763 F. … The Senate Judiciary Committee’s allegedly unconstitutional decision to approve Judge Wu clearly falls within the parameters of this immunity CONCLUSION For the reasons

Williams v. Johnson

District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2011

evidence—in support of its position, or (b) demonstrate that the materials relied upon by the opposing party do not actually establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute. … on [its] waiver of its immunity.” Tucci, 956 A.2d at 695 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Smoking Everywhere, Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 14, 2010

In addition, ... this product is clearly intended for "drug" use by "the circumstances surrounding the distribution of the article." … Even though the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") waives immunity for damages in some instances, it does not do so here.

Texas Border Coalition v. Napolitano

614 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 15, 2009

Nor is sovereign immunity a bar to this action. While [n]either the general federal question statute nor the mandamus statute by itself waives sovereign immunity! … Where Congress has clearly commanded that *61 administrative judgment be taken initially or exclusively, the cotvrts have no lawful function to anticipate the administrative decision with their own, whether or not when it

Akins v. Federal Election Commission

736 F. Supp. 2d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 6, 2010

A former member of our Court granted summary judgment for the FEC in 1994, agreeing with the “major purpose” test employed by the FEC to determine whether AIPAC qualified as a political committee. … Such a sham, according to the Commission, is clearly not in issue here, given AIPAC’s primary focus on lobbying, which it has actively conducted for more than forty years.

United States v. Simon

368 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2005

In support of this conclusion, it argues that “when a person runs that stop sign, it clearly places the Metro transit patrons at grave risk of harm.” (Id.) … The Supreme Court established a “good-faith exception” to the exclusionary rule in United States v.

Clark v. Alexander

489 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 1980

, highly qualified and best qualified candidates. … Plaintiff was qualified for all three positions, and the selectee was never more qualified than she.