Case law

Tax Analysts and Advocates v. Simon

390 F. Supp. 927 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 5, 1975

The SCRAP plaintiffs clearly met the two-pronged test for establishing standing under section 10 of the APA as set out in ADAPSCO, supra, and Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159 , 90 S.Ct. 832 , 25 L.Ed.2d 192 (1970). … And a policy limitation is ‘not always clearly distinguished from the constitutional limitation.’ ” 392 U.S. at 97 , 88 S.Ct. at 1951 , 20 L.Ed.2d 947 .

Newport Aeronautical Sales v. Department of the Air Force

660 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 7, 2009

Thus, the Air Force must establish that “the statute claimed is one of exemption as contemplated by Exemption 3 and that the withheld material falls within the statute.” Larson v. … (ii) the Board may disclose such information in cases in which the Board finds *66 that such disclosure is clearly in furtherance of the interest of the employee or his estate;....

Newton v. CBS, INC.

841 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 1994

In order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a Plaintiff must show that he or she (1) belongs to the statutorily protected age group; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) was terminated; and (4) was … In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the first factor: the Plaintiff was clearly over 40 at the time of her discharge.

Wolston v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc.

429 F. Supp. 167 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 1977

Gertz, reasoned the Court, clearly did not qualify as a public figure for all purposes since he had achieved no general fame or notoriety in the community. Id. at 351-52 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 . … Accordingly, defendant’s motion should be granted if plaintiff is unable to establish clearly and convincingly that defendants acted with actual malice. See, e.g., Miller v.

Customs and Tax Consultancy LLC v. Democratic Republic of Congo

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2019

. #1] under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1441(d), 1602 et seg. … Under the FSIA, a “foreign state is presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts.” Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 355 (1993). But the FSIA enumerates several exceptions to this immunity.

Emory v. United Air Lines, Inc.

821 F. Supp. 2d 200 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 21, 2011

the burden is on one complaining of a due process violation to establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way.”). … the physical fitness of flight attendants was established in the CBA); Fisher v.

Schertzman Cohen v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2019

Legal Standard Foreign states are generally immune from suit in federal court, subject to exceptions codified in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1604; see also Argentine Republic v. … Congress has therefore waived Iran’s sovereign immunity, and derivatively the immunity of the IRGC, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605A.

Hairsine v. James

517 F. Supp. 2d 301 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 2007

The evidence in the record establishes that Ms. Pitt’s claim is accurate. According to the testimony of Mr. … The record simply does not reflect a discriminatory decision to promote two minority applicants over a white applicant with clearly superior qualifications. The government’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.

Roney v. Saxbe

380 F. Supp. 1191 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 1974

Clearly, then, the claims of those plaintiffs are now barred by the thirty-day filing provision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—16(e). See Kurylas v. U.S. … The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 waived, in the case of the federal government, the otherwise available defense of sovereign immunity. Place v. Weinberger, 497 F.2d 412 (6th Cir. 1974). Compare Gnotta v.

Government Accountability Project v. U.S. Department of State

699 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2010

The documents at issue here clearly fall within the ordinary meaning of “commercial.” One document was a report from U.S. … The threshold issue under Exemption 5 is whether the withheld documents qualify as “inter-agency or intra-agency” memoranda.

Toms v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol

650 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2009

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff has failed to establish an exception to the application of res judicata. … Regarding the defendant’s arguments for dismissal of the plaintiff's Bivens claims, the plaintiff notes in his Opposition only that "the [defendants ... are not entitled to qualified immunity from the Bivens claim of the

Graffius v. Shinseki

672 F. Supp. 2d 119 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2009

Under this framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation. … Graffius’s assertion appears to be correct: Exhibit 9, the Exhibit that the VA cites to support its assertion, clearly states that Graffius reported that she could not come to work on October 1, 2003.

Faison v. Government of the District of Columbia

893 F. Supp. 2d 143 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2012

A plaintiff can establish liability under the ADEA in two ways. … Faison’s “excellent performance and deep knowledge of the customer service unit,” traits that are clearly unshared by Ms. Johnson.

Mendoza v. Solis

924 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 2013

To qualify for certification, a prospective H-2A employer must agree to a number of obligations, including, inter alia: (1) keeping any job opportunity open to any qualified U.S. worker on a non-discriminatory basis; (2 … In this case, the INA itself speaks relatively clearly about the “interests to be protected or regulated.” See Patchak, 132 S. Ct. at 2210.

Stewart v. Mabus

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2016

Thus, upon receipt of his medical degree in 1995, Stewart had a 12-year service obligation, requiring that he engage in qualifying service in the Navy until at least May of 2007 … On November 9, 2005, Stewart's third MSP agreement request was approved, establishing the third MSP agreement. AR 62.

Hall v. Architect of the Capitol

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2024

LEGAL STANDARDS FTCA The United States is immune from suit, except where Congress has unequivocally consented to permit a cause of action. United States v. … The FTCA provides a limited waiver of this immunity for certain tort claims committed by federal agencies and employees. See Dep’t of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 261 (1999); United States v.

Thompson v. Rice

422 F. Supp. 2d 158 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2006

Plaintiffs hemorrhage clearly falls within the definition of impairment under the Rehabilitation Act. … this standard as supporting an inference of pretext only where a plaintiff is “clearly superior” or “significantly better qualified” than the other candidate).

Southern Education Foundation v. United States Department of Education

District Court, District of Columbia · May 21, 2025

Plaintiff After the Civil War ended in 1865 – and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were added to our Constitution – foundations were formed to train qualified teachers, provide educational … [of establishing] irreparable harm.” League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d at 9. Reputational injury can also suffice to establish irreparable harm. See Patriot, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 963 F.

Calloway v. Brownlee

366 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2005

Under this test, a case is “based on the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity only if the plaintiff seeks money or the district court grants it.” Id. at 285. … The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the decision was the result of a material legal error or injustice. Muse v.

Lombard v. United States

530 F. Supp. 918 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 1981

Second, the Veterans’ Benefits Act establishes, as a substitute for tort liability, a statutory “no fault” compensation scheme which provides generous pensions to injured servicemen, without regard to any negligence attributable … The Court will not carve out an exception to sovereign immunity in a situation where the rationale underlying Feres does not clearly mandate such an extraordinary step. B. LIABILITY OF THE NAMED INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS.