Case law

Lindsey v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 2009

Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), the plaintiff established a prima facie case of age discrimination because he was “over 40 years old and in the age-protected class, he was qualified to be a [s]ergeant canine handler, and he … This result gives proper deference to the conclusions reached by Judge Collyer in the plaintiff’s earlier case without immunizing the defendant from alleged discriminatory conduct that occurred after Judge Collyer rendered

Federal Trade Commission v. GlaxoSmithKline

203 F.R.D. 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 9, 2001

The burden of establishing the applicability of the attorney client privilege falls squarely on the party invoking its protection. … GSK has clearly failed to do that in either the privilege log or in Kinzig’s declaration.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 5, 2019

withheld 3 Defendant also made certain redactions to these documents under FOIA Exemption 6, which allows the government to withhold “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly … To meet that bur- den, the proponent must establish the claimed privilege with “reasonable certainty.” Fed. Trade Comm'n v. TRW, Inc., 628 F.2d 207, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

Brooks v. Clinton

841 F. Supp. 2d 287 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 30, 2012

The legal framework for demonstrating retaliation under Title VII is similar to the framework for establishing discrimination. … Supp. 2d 64, 83 (D.D.C. 2009) (noting the Act creates a “demanding standard for qualifying as disabled”) (quoting Toyota, 534 U.S. at 197).

Southeastern Fisheries Ass'n, Inc. v. Mosbacher

773 F. Supp. 435 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 1991

He also established a scientific research program to assess the health and future of the stock. … Finally, the regulations established a scientific program and a licensing scheme for the by-caught fish.

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States

425 F. Supp. 903 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 20, 1975

An analysis of the detailed decision of the ALJ establishes that the “public advantage in its operations” test was carefully considered and applied to the evidence of record. … Section 207 provides for the issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity to qualified applicants.

Hill v. Geren

597 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2009

But even if the Court were to consider defendants’ argument, the “regulatory policy” at issue clearly holds out the possibility of receiving “approv[al] for voluntary retention” beyond 20 years of AFS. … As explained by defendants and the Board’s decision, Army regulations established multiple possible “effective dates” of promotion {ie., the dates on which officers would become “eligible for pay and allowances in the higher

Solis v. American Federation of Government Employees

763 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 2011

The LMRDA clearly establishes that federal district courts have jurisdiction for LMRDA violations. … Castellano’s failure to pay the correct dues during the period of 1996-2004 and his loss of occupational status as a government employee qualifies as a “fatal” break in union membership.

POWERS-BUNCE v. District of Columbia

659 F. Supp. 2d 173 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 5, 2009

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Powers’ “clearly established Fifth Amendment rights is appropriate.” Hardy v. District of Columbia, 601 F.Supp.2d 182, 189 (D.D.C.2009).

Hatcher v. United States Postal Service

556 F. Supp. 331 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 1982

(B) establishes particular criteria for withholding, or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.” … . § 410 (c)(6) qualifies as an exempting statute under (b)(3), 6 that provision does not authorize withholding of these materials either.

Chandamuri v. Georgetown University

274 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 2003

Chanda-muri claims that he was qualified to pass Chemistry 420 but for the “discriminatory disciplinary action” taken against him by Dr. Roepe, Dr. Kertesz, and members of the Georgetown Honor Council. a. … In this instance, he has clearly alleged “facts that render success on the merits impossible.” Sparrow, 216 F.3d at 1116 . b.

Watson v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2023

of why the plaintiff’s impairments were not severe enough to qualify him as disabled); see also Ribaudo v. … Jul. 30, 2009) (“When the evidence in the administrative record clearly generates an issue as to a particular listing and the ALJ fails to . . . explain clearly the medical evidence of record supporting the conclusion reached

Thompson v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers

614 F. Supp. 1002 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1985

The plaintiff must carry an initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. … The jury in this case had before it ample evidence to establish a prima facie case of both sex discrimination and retaliatory discrimination.

National Wrestling Coaches Ass'n v. United States Department of Education

263 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 2003

from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Defendant clearly points out that plaintiffs October 1995 letter did not expressly ask DoE to amend or repeal its interpretive rules or the 1975 Regulations.

Gavett v. Alexander

477 F. Supp. 1035 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 1979

Clearly, plaintiff would be able to purchase an Army rifle at a discount but for the NRA membership requirement imposed by the statute, and he is thus “injured” by it. … Under the most elementary rules of standing, jurisdiction, and case or controversy, Gavett qualifies as a plaintiff.

Singleton v. Potter

402 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 2005

First, contrary to Plaintiffs overinflated claims, the evidence clearly shows that Plaintiff was essentially a secretary seeking to become a training specialist. … However, given the other weaknesses mentioned, Plaintiffs claim clearly fails.

Photo Data, Inc. v. Sawyer

533 F. Supp. 348 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 1982

It is also well established that attorneys’ fees may not be levied against the United States unless expressly provided for by Congress. … As a threshold matter plaintiff must qualify as a small business under the Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(2)(B).

Cobell v. Norton

319 F. Supp. 2d 36 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2004

We are of the view, however, that to qualify as a prevailing party, and thus be eligible for an interlocutory award of costs, one must establish a right or entitlement to some relief on the merits of one or more of his claims … 44 Fed.Cl. 764, 768 (Fed.Cl.1999) (finding that "notwithstanding that at the time of plaintiff's EAJA petition the quantum of damages had not been decided and the court had not yet entered final judgment, plaintiff had clearly

Lauderhill Housing Authority v. Donovan

818 F. Supp. 2d 185 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 14, 2011

LHA provided HUD with a copy of the City Council’s 2002 resolution establishing it as a public housing authority. … The complaint does not clearly set out the chronology of what happened in a way that makes it clear how long either party has been waiting for the other to do something.

Ragsdale v. Holder

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 2, 2009

Although the same actor inference “is just that, an inference, which ‘cannot immunize [the defendant] from liability for subsequent discrimination,’” Isse, 540 F. … As such, they are inadmissible unless they 21 qualify for their own exclusion from the hearsay rule.” Barry v.