Case law

Walden v. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

177 F. Supp. 3d 336 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2016

If an alleged employment action does “not clearly result in a significant change in employment status, an employee must ‘[demonstrate] how the decision nonetheless caused such an objectively tangible harm.’” Wilson v. … Defendant's alleged actions . . . qualify as materially adverse actions. Id. at 178. Similarly, as Plaintiff points out, the D.C.

Bridges Public Charter School v. Barrie

709 F. Supp. 2d 94 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2010

Once a child is found to qualify for a free appropriate public education, the school district is required to develop and implement an individualized education program (“IEp”) for jjjm or her- gee ^ § 1414(d)(2)(A). … Specifically, the officer “concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly established that the student’s ... IEPs were developed with the parent’s full participation.” Compl. ¶ 25.

Evans v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 16, 2009

Evans into the roadway in much the same way as did a driver immediately behind the motorcycle, who clearly saw it. … Evans has clearly alleged a cause of action for negligence, as well as elements upon which a jury could find that, even if Mr.

Burlington Insurance v. Okie Dokie, Inc.

368 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 2005

An opposing party’s objection qualifies as “substantially justified” if “there is a genuine dispute or if reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action.” Pierce v. … Thomas is not an agent with the authority to bind Burlington and the question of whether Burlington would have issued the policy to Okie Dokie is clearly in dispute.

United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

524 F. Supp. 1336 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 1981

Certainly, the various practices catalogued supra, if ultimately believed by the Court to have occurred, would establish such an intent (even if they were not regarded as establishing predatory conduct). 136 E. … However, on that issue, too, the government has to this point clearly carried its burden of proof. 80 . See testimony of Eugene Cacciamani.

Hinton v. United States

714 F. Supp. 2d 157 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2010

. *160 Plaintiff counters that “[t]here is no reason why the Court should not accept [pllaintiffs contentions within the Complaint [because he] has clearly • stated a claim.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 4. … Causation as an Element of a Negligence Claim “The FTCA waives sovereign immunity ‘under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 25, 2009

Thus, the injury alleged by the CNMI is redressable, and the plaintiff clearly has standing. … But it declined the CNMI’s invitation to read Sections 103 and 105 as “carving out an area of ‘local affairs’ immune from federal legislation.” Id. at 755.

Jianqing Wu v. Special Counsel, Inc.

54 F. Supp. 3d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2014

In order to establish disparate-impact discrimination, Plaintiff must show that a facially neutral employment policy or practice has a significant disparate impact on a protected class of which he is a member. … The statute, therefore, clearly contemplates a distinction between “period of service” or “work history” and “age.”

Shaw v. District of Columbia

238 F. Supp. 2d 127 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 22, 2002

Id. ¶ 39 . 7 Plaintiffs seek a ruling from this Court that DCPS failed to satisfy its burden of proof at the hearing before the hearing officer to establish that the DCPS representative was qualified to be present at the … Plaintiffs have submitted only the unsubstantiated assertions of counsel to establish this potential injury.

Animal Legal Defense Fund v. United States Department of Agriculture

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2025

Defendants renewed their motion to dismiss for lack of standing on April 7, 2025, focusing again on whether Baldwin had plausibly alleged cognizable injuries and whether ALDF qualified as a membership organization … The doctors’ opposition to abortion (coupled with statutory immunity) would motivate (and permit) them to avoid any conscience injury they would suffer by having to perform the procedure.

Allan v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · May 21, 2019

. § 1605A, the terrorism exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (*FSIA”). Having considered all of the record evidence, I find that plaintiffs have established grounds for default. … sovereign immunity is analytically distinct from whether a plaintiff has a cause of action.”)

National Railroad Passenger v. Veolia Transportation Services, Inc.

791 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 9, 2011

Veolia argues that even if it had not engaged in the conduct challenged by Amtrak, it still would have been able to submit “a qualifying bid.” Defs.’ Reply at 21-23. … First, Veolia points out that it had qualified alternative candidates for all of its Key Management Team positions. Id. at 22-23; Defs.’ Mem. at 40-41.

Jordan v. Evans

355 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2004

Jordan has clearly engaged in statutorily protected activity by participating in the Howard class action and filing her own discrimination complaint with OCR. … Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C.Cir.2000); In re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liability Litigation, 880 F.2d 1439, 1442-43 (D.C.Cir.1989). B.

Townsend v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 16, 2017

immunity bars the claims under the Fourth Amendment (Count XII) and Fifth Amendment (Count XV). … Consequently, the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy and no Fourth Amendment search occurred, and, “ipso facto, there was no violation of constitutional right, let alone a clearly established one.” Id.

In Re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983

704 F. Supp. 1135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 7, 1988

This is clearly erroneous. … The defendant in that action was an “agency or instrumentality” of Poland, and thus qualified as a “foreign state” within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Id.

Estate of Yael Botvin v. Heideman, Nudelman & Kalik, P.C.

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2022

The FSIA established a default presumption that foreign states are immune from suit unless one of several enumerated exceptions applies. See Verlinden B. V. v. Cent. … The complaint cited 28 U.S.C. 5  § 1605(a)(7) for jurisdiction1 though it clearly asserted the common law causes of action of - wrongful death, survival, intentional

United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co.

74 F. Supp. 3d 183 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 2014

These documents also do not qualify for work product protection. Just as these communications lacked a “significant purpose” of seeking or providing legal advice, they were not prepared “in anticipation of litigation.” … In any event, the burden of establishing privilege is on the party opposing production, and KBR has not established that these documents were shielded confidential communications to an attorney rather than unsheltered directions

Cox v. Department of Treasury

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 6, 2021

FOIA requires that federal agencies comply with requests to make their records available to the public, unless such “information is exempted under [one of nine] clearly delineated statutory language.” Id. … Thus, Plaintiffs cannot credibly allege that they “duly filed” a timely claim with the IRS to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See United States v.

Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 2025

implicates . . . clearly established First Amendment rights of association and free speech.”). … FCC, 109 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir. 1996) (“The threat of unrecoverable economic loss, however, does qualify as irreparable harm.”); TRO Hr’g Tr. at 26:11-15 (plaintiff’s counsel recognizing sovereign immunity bars monetary

Brown v. BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

662 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2009

Circuit concluded that although the employer had clearly failed to follow established hiring procedures, the circumstances of that case made it unreasonable to infer therefrom that the employer acted with discriminatory motives … Brown concedes that the selectees were well qualified for position M/P 01-151. See Brown Dep. at 20, 23, 25.