Case law

American Federation of Government Employees v. United States

195 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2002

Force converts an activity or function to performance by a qualified firm under “Native American ownership.” See § 8014(3); Am.Compl. ¶ 27. … Circuit held that being deprived of an opportunity to compete for the set-aside contracts “clearly makes out an injury” for standing purposes. See id. at 1016 .

Omwenga v. United Nations Foundation

244 F. Supp. 3d 214 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2017

While “[t]hreatening to file a qui tam suit or to make a report to the government . . . clearly is one way to make an employer aware[,] . . . it is not the only way,” … litigation Plaintiff has met her burden to allege facts for each of the prima facie elements: she is a Black woman from Kenya, there was a job posting, she had relevant work and educational background such that she was qualified

Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

990 F. Supp. 2d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 13, 2013

First of all, notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ bald allegations of concrete injury to flora and fauna, the record does not clearly establish that the FS Pipeline construction will have a significant or substantial impact on … And even if such alteration of the environment qualifies as harm, Plaintiffs have not established that it is irreparable, as the Federal Agencies point out. (Def.

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Homeland Security

384 F. Supp. 2d 100 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2005

To invoke the deliberative-process privilege, the defendant must establish two prerequisites. Id. … Further, another district has held that these statutes qualify as Exemption 3 statutes. See Gordon v. FBI, 2004 WL 1368858, *2 (N.D.Cal.2004). 11 .

Dunham v. Astrue

603 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2009

Butler found that an ALJ’s decision was not based on substantial evidence because the ALJ neither provided a reason for rejecting a treating physician’s opinions, which clearly supported the applicant’s physical limitations … daily living if you have a serious limitation in your ability to maintain a household or take public transportation because of symptoms, such as pain, severe fatigue, anxiety, or difficulty concentrating, caused by your immune

Parlatore v. Montalvo

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2023

You consider this and the assistance of qualified counsel before you file any such motion. If you file it[,] I will of course contest it and seek any and all remedies available under the law. … Here, in contrast, the litigation was ongoing, and the statement at issue was clearly “pertinent” to that litigation.

Calhoun v. Doan

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2009

Compl. ¶ 5), plaintiff also clearly alleges an incident of discrimination in December 2000, (Am. … GSA argues the selectees’ “real property experience” made them more qualified than Calhoun.

United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

498 F. Supp. 353 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 1980

Both parties agree that statements by AT&T officials qualify as non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2), and their agreement is adopted as the ruling of the Court. 5 . … Only one docket-FCC Docket No. 19896-clearly falls into one category or the other.

Green v. Kinney Shoe Corp.

728 F. Supp. 768 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 1989

Green established that there were very few black managers of Foot Locker stores across the nation and not many in the Washington area, which has a large black population. … In Broderick , a Title VII case, the court first noted that the plaintiff clearly and undeniably was the victim of sexual harassment and worked in a hostile atmosphere because of this harassment. Id. at 1278-80 .

Talbott v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2025

The moving party “bears the burden of establishing that changed circumstances warrant relief.” Am. Council of the Blind. v. Mnuchin, 878 F.3d 360, 366 (D.C. … For this reason, Defendants “cannot immunize [themselves] from violating” the Fifth Amendment “by discriminating against only a subset of” transgender persons. Id.

Minter v. District of Columbia

62 F. Supp. 3d 149 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2014

You are clearly having difficulty in determining where to go or how to handle your situation. … Supp. 2d at 87 (finding a submission titled “Charge Questionnaire” to be sufficient where the form clearly stated that, without further timely filings, the form itself would constitute a charge).

Francis v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 2020

Specifically, “the telephone calls [by the plaintiffs to IRS employees]” cannot qualify as [ ] proper[ly[ signed written request[s] under the FOIA or the Privacy Act.” … To begin with, the law is well-established that the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to suits for monetary damages.

A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition v. Kempthorne

537 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2008

Kroll is a case about qualified immunity rather than the First Amendment. See Kroll v. … United States Capitol Police, 847 F.2d at 902 (The “sole issue on appeal is whether this aspect of First Amendment law was so ‘clearly established’ ... ”).

2910 Georgia Avenue LLC v. District of Columbia

312 F.R.D. 205 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 29, 2015

Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment stating that: (a) the IZ Program is unconstitutiona l; (b) Defendants Gray and Kelly, acting under color of state law, have deprived Plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities … Patel was in default under the IZ covenant, than whether she was a qualified buyer under Section 2213.3. See id.

Harris v. Allison

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 2016

Yet, the standard for what constitutes excessive force in the context of incarcerated prisoners—so far as the Court is aware—has not been clearly expounded by any court in the District of Columbia. … This counsels the Court to apply the Eighth Amendment excessive force standard to the qualified privilege defense asserted against the assault claims at issue in this case.

Johnson v. Hartogensis

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 5, 2023

Johnson has established an adverse action with regard to those claims. … Joseph were comparably qualified for the position, her evidence falls well short of establishing that she was “significantly better qualified” than Mr. Joseph. Adeyemi, 525 F.3d at 1227.

Deese-Laurent v. Real Liquidity, Inc.

305 F. Supp. 3d 280 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2018

to assert, by way of a motion, as a defense, or otherwise in any such suit, action or proceeding, any claim that it is not subject personally to the jurisdiction of the above-named courts, that its property is exempt or immune … Where plaintiff's interests are derivative of Vineyard's, it is clearly foreseeable that he is as subject to the NPA's forum-selection clause as were the entities he managed. See id. at *9 . IV.

Montgomery v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2022

The Court dismissed Montgomery’s suppression of exculpatory evidence claim since Montgomery had not demonstrated that there is a clearly established right to receive exculpatory evidence prior to a preliminary detention … Part of the reason for this consensus is that “the statutory language of Title II establishes two separate circumstances under which a qualified individual with a disability might have a claim against a public entity.”

Jones v. Rivers

722 F. Supp. 771 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 1989

This “self-sufficiency” initiative soon assumed city-wide significance, when an inter-agency task force was established and the private sector became involved. … These facts speak clearly. They demonstrate that Joan Jones was not selected as Chief of the Office of Planning and Placement because she was a woman. No other reasonable conclusion may be drawn from the evidence. B.

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States of America Department of the Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2009

Because Defendants concede that they made no efforts to obtain the funding, Pl.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 18-20, Plaintiff contends that Defendants clearly breached the parties’ Contract. Pl.’s Mot. at 13-14; Reply at 4-5. … of the Act, that the government has, in fact, consented to actions for specific performance for breach of self-governance contracts under the ISDEAA—and Defendants offer no reason why the general principle of sovereign immunity