Case law

Chudson v. Watt

125 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2015

Shalala, 199 F.3d 512, 518 (D.C.Cir.2000) (“for purposes of the prima facie case, ... it is sufficient that [the plaintiff] has established that he was substantively qualified.”). … In the ordinary course, an employer need only “explain[] clearly the nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions,” Texas Dept. Comm’y Affairs v.

Center for Biological Diversity v. Pirie

201 F. Supp. 2d 113 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2002

As discussed above, § 702 is the provision creating the right to sue the United States and waiving the United States’ sovereign immunity in non-damages actions. … The legislative history to that amendment explains: All other than the law of sovereign immunity remain unchanged [by this amendment].

Coles v. Perry

271 F. Supp. 2d 157 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 2003

On March 16, 1999, plaintiff was placed on the Best Qualified list for a Grade 14 Special Agent position. On March 18,1999, plaintiff was removed from the Best Qualified list. … If plaintiff can establish all of that, she will have established a causal connection between what Dutton said and what Dr.

Public Warehousing Co. K.S.C. v. Defense Supply Center Philadelphia

489 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 22, 2007

James, 416 F.3d 63, 66 (D.C.Cir.2005) (discussing the waiver of sovereign immunity set forth in section 702). … Thus, the Federal Circuit held that a statute is “in connection with a procurement” where “an agency’s actions under a statute ... clearly affect the award and performance of a contract.” Id.

Serono Laboratories, Inc. v. Shalala

974 F. Supp. 29 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 1997

In March 1994, the FDA's scientists declared that two analyses have "clearly demonstrated that Serono Pergonal (reference) and Lederle [Ferring] menotropins are chemically different. … (CCH) ¶ 86,178, at 90,538 (M.D.Fla. 1985)("where a defendant has sovereign immunity, monetary loss constitutes irreparable injury”).

Green v. Kenneway

390 F. Supp. 3d 275 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 15, 2019

A decision is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if it "contradicts the governing law set forth in the Supreme Court's cases or confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of … It should defer to that reasoning, even if the habeas court "concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly."

Larson v. Mayorkas

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2025

Subsequently, on December 22, 2020, “[the plaintiff] took the COVID-19 vaccine” and was hospitalized a few weeks later “following an adverse reaction including a rash and swelling, thought to be a hyper-immunity reaction … Thus, the Court concludes that because the record in this case clearly shows—and the plaintiff does not dispute—that the plaintiff “initiated contact” with an EEO counselor on May 5, 2022, he may only maintain discrimination

Taylor v. Federal Aviation Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 9, 2019

Such an assertion hardly qualifies as a well-pleaded factual allegation. … Neither does Plaintiff’s claimed lost time value of the $5.00 qualify as “proven pecuniary or economic harm.” Id. (emphasis added).

America First Legal Foundation v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2025

The PSR at issue is clearly an agency record subject to FOIA. … However, DOJ clearly asserted the work-product privilege in the Hudgins declaration, which accompanied the motion and clearly set forth the agency’s positions providing the evidentiary basis for withholding.

American BioScience, Inc. v. Thompson

141 F. Supp. 2d 88 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2001

Quite plainly, entities like BNP are not sheltered by the sovereign immunity that might protect the FDA from suit. … Because earlier correspondence from the FDA clearly establish that it was aware of the ’331 patent, see, e.g., AR 1 (Aug. 28, 2000 Letter from FDA to BNP) the September 15, 2000 letter implies that the FDA believed the patent

Chang v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2009

Argo and Don Masoero enjoy qualified immunity for the claims asserted against them. The Court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. A. … immunity or whether it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim. 14

Braun v. United States Post Office

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2017

To survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction. Lujan v. … Botanical Gardens were "clearly baseless"); cf. Kleiman v. Dep't of Energy, 956 F.2d 335, 339 (D.C.

Sussman v. Powell

64 F. App'x 248 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2003

Transit Auth., 205 F.3d 428, 433 (D.C.Cir.2000) (to establish prima facie case of retaliation plaintiff must demonstrate that “<(1) [she] engaged in protected activity, (2)[she] was subjected to adverse action by the employer … On the claim of failure to promote to a Senior Attorney position, the court properly granted summary judgment because Sussman failed to show he was qualified for the position or that the proffered reason for not promoting

Murphy v. United States

121 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2000

The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to determine whether an action is exempt from suit under the discretionary function exception. See *26 United States v. … Plaintiff asserts that his FTCA “administrative claim clearly stated his contention that the Secret Service was negligent in its investigation and records” related to the alleged assault. Plaintiff relies on Liguori v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Toggas

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2020

“To bring a case within the statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Gully v. … Nor this case does qualify for diversity jurisdiction.

Black v. Tomlinson

425 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2006

First, defendant argues that plaintiff is unable to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because the selecting officials were unaware of her prior protected conduct, she was not qualified for the positions at issue … , including any minimum educational requirements, and any selection placement factors established by the agency;” second, “[i]s physically qualified, with reasonable accommodation where appropriate, to perform the duties

ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES v. Sebelius

756 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 2010

do they even establish the law of the district.”) … Where a plaintiff cannot recover damages from an agency because the agency has sovereign immunity, any loss of income suffered by [the] plaintiff is irreparable per se.”)

Tschappat v. Reich

957 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 1997

Moreover, Plaintiff appeared to be uncomfortable during his interview, failed to clearly articulate his responses to various questions, and, in answering a question relating to inquiries *298 from the press, cast doubt on … The selecting official concluded that the selectee was the most qualified candidate for the position. (Lane, para.25).

Chang v. District of Columbia Department of Regulatory & Consumer Affairs

604 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2009

Argo and Don Masoero enjoy qualified immunity for the claims asserted against them. The Court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. A. … Since the Court is dismissing all claims, it need not reach the arguments that defendants raise about qualified immunity or whether it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim.

Lindenberg v. United States Department of Justice, Immigration & Naturalization Service

657 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 1987

Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 [, 67 S.Ct. 504 , 91 L.Ed. 711 ] (1947), this Court has adhered to the principle, clearly manifested in the history and logic of the Establishment Clause, that no State can “pass laws which … Additionally, the Department of Labor has issued an informal explanation of the term “religious commitment” which would clearly include Lindenberg.