Case law

Quintell Etheridge v. Fedchoice Federal Credit Union

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2011

Plaintiff has clearly established, and Defendant does not challenge, that her plantar fasciitis was a medical impairment “of central importance to daily life,” namely, her ability to stand and walk. … While Plaintiff does not provide any authority establishing that an impairment such as hers, lasting at most for 8 months, qualifies as a disability under the ADA, there is ample case law establishing that Plaintiff’s

Elhusseini v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

578 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2008

On this record the defendant has clearly presented a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiffs non-selection; thus, the burden returns to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the proffered reason is a pretext for … Thus, the plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of establishing a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge.

Brendsel v. Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

339 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2004

Meanwhile, OFHEO is immune from suit because there is no relevant waiver of sovereign immunity permitting it to be sued on these claims. See e.g. Kansas Health Care Ass’n v. Kansas Dep’t of Soc. & Rehab. … This passage clearly contemplates the inclusion of the relevant factors in the section of the statute.

Allen v. Department of Defense

580 F. Supp. 74 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 1983

In addition, the CIA argues that the documents are exempt from disclosure because they are “congressional” under the test established by this Circuit in Goland v. … In Goland the Court established a test for determining when congressionally generated or created documents, released to an agency for safekeeping, remained congressional documents immune from disclosure under FOIA.

Marinette Marine Corp. v. Department of the Navy

527 F. Supp. 587 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 1981

It was clearly understood between PBI and NTS that this arrangement was to last only three to five months, until PBI’s needs decreased. … Schaffer, 424 F.2d 859, 872 (D.C.Cir. 1970), which established that disappointed bidders on government contracts have standing to challenge the legality of such awards.

Ross v. DynCorp

362 F. Supp. 2d 344 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2005

After World War II, Congress again expanded DBA coverage by enacting legislation to “change the [DBA’s] frame of reference [for determining what kinds of overseas employment would qualify for coverage] from World War II to … Nevertheless, the Qutb court made no statement in support of the proposition that intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are for some reason immune to judgment as a matter of law, but rather simply found that

Porter v. Jackson

668 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 13, 2009

[is] regarded as having such an impairment.” 29 U.S.C. § 705 (20)(B) (referring to ADA definition); see 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2) (ADA definition of disabled individual). 7 Plaintiff states that she has neurological and immune … EPA does not dispute that plaintiff was "otherwise qualified" during the time periods relevant to this dispute, and so the Court will not address this issue.

Touarsi v. United States Department of Justice

78 F. Supp. 3d 332 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 23, 2015

To qualify for the privilege, a document must be both “predecisional,” meaning it was made before the “adoption of an agency policy,” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 151 (D.C. … Public Domain “Under [the] public domain doctrine, materials normally immunized from disclosure under FOIA lose their protective cloak once disclosed and preserved in a permanent public record.” Cottone v.

Davis v. Melcher (In Re Melcher)

319 B.R. 761 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 2004

This fails clearly to allege that the Mel-chers (as opposed to Frolia) indicated that the act was deliberate; moreover, even if the Melchers said it was a deliberate act, they may have been referring to a deliberate act by … The building permits did not immunize Frolia from the obligation to act as a contractor only if licensed to act as such.

Rsm Production Corporation v. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2011

Bowen because he was dismissed, “before any merits-based determination,” on jurisdictional grounds under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Pl.’s Opp’n Mem., at 30-31. … May 24, 2011) (“It is well-established that res judicata applies regardless of the claims or legal theories actually relied upon in the earlier litigation.”); Youngin’s Auto Body v.

Paquin v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n

935 F. Supp. 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1996

Plaintiff chose not to question or challenge the evaluations, continuing without regard to Fannie Mae’s clearly delineated criticism of his work. … Plaintiff alternatively attempts to establish pretext based on his replacement by Elizabeth Snyder, a younger, allegedly less qualified individual.

Doe v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2016

ANALYSIS Gladden and Ogu move for summary judgment on Doe’s § 1983 claim on the grounds that they are protected by qualified immunity. … But, on the present record, and resolving all disputed factual issues in Doe’s favor, qualified immunity is unavailable.

Affinity Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Sebelius

746 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 2010

Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 517 F.Supp.2d 431 , 435 n. 4 (D.D.C.2007) (stating that the provider did not qualify for an EJR because it failed to submit a claim for benefits to the PRRB); Alexandria Hosp. v. … See 5 U.S.C. § 702 (waiving the government’s sovereign immunity to suits by individuals suffering a legal wrong because of agency action and “seeking relief other than money damages”).

Watkins v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2023

The Supreme Court has made clear that “the plaintiff must make a further showing: She must show that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that her resignation qualified as a fitting response.” … Her claims do not implicate WMATA’s immunity with respect to its personnel decisions. Indeed, the D.C.

Durso v. Napolitano

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 5, 2011

There, the FAA argued that “to qualify as an order, an agency decision must not only be final, but also ‘be accompanied by a record sufficient to permit judicial review.’” … Wash. 2005). 4 The inescapable-intertwinement doctrine applies only where a claim does not directly challenge the order in question; if it does, intertwinement is a moot point because § 46110 clearly

Barrett v. Chreky (In Re Chreky)

450 B.R. 247 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 2011

“The characteristics of a tenancy by the entireties are: a right of survivorship, an inability of one spouse to alienate his interest, and a broad immunity from claims by separate creditors.” Id. … Subsequent to common law, however, “[a]ets of Congress have established the separation of husband and wife as to property, contracts, and torts in the District of Columbia....

Azadeh v. the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 5, 2018

To qualify as torture, the mistreatment must be purposeful—that is, the defendant must have targeted the victim . . . .”). … Plaintiff’s captors also inflicted on her extreme mental pain and suffering that qualified as torture under the FSIA.

Yang v. Spahn

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 2023

“[T]o establish ‘constructive discharge,’ the plaintiff . . . must show that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that [their] resignation qualified as a fitting response.” Id. at 134. … Proposed APA Claim Generally, when a plaintiff challenges agency action, the APA provides a cause of action for the plaintiff and a waiver of sovereign immunity by the government. See Am. Rd. & Transp.

Iyer v. George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2026

But even if a plaintiff meets her burden, a defendant is not liable for disability discrimination if it establishes that the plaintiff is not “otherwise qualified” for the services or programs, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), or if … The “otherwise qualified” requirement is well-established in Rehabilitation Act jurisprudence. See id. But Ms.

Dobbs v. Roche

329 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2004

(noting that a mere assertion of failure to exhaust administrative remedies without more is “clearly inadequate under prevailing regulations to establish a failure to exhaust administrative remedies”). … Rather, “[t]he defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, reasons for its actions which, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not