Case law

Williams v. Spencer

883 F. Supp. 2d 165 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2012

Supp. 2d at 43, action which occurs more than three months after the protected activity is not likely to qualify for such a causal inference. See Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. … Not only are these claims not clearly raised in plaintiff’s amended complaint, 8 but, to the extent her amended complaint could be construed as making such claims, they nonetheless fail.

Miniter v. Moon

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2010

Less clearly, the plaintiff states that he “was offered a package of benefits including health coverage, dental coverage, health-club membership, an executive-retirement plan, paid vacation and other leave, and other substantial … The plaintiff has clearly alleged the existence of a valid contract. See Compl. ¶¶ 46, 49, 62-63, 67-68, 70, 82-83; see generally Pl.’s Opp’n to Times’s Mot.; Pl.’s Aff.

Rynn v. Jaffe

457 F. Supp. 2d 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 20, 2006

To qualify for subsection 8’s three-year limitation, a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) must be “independent” in that it stems from conduct separate from the alleged subsection 4 wrongs. … These factual allegations are clearly sufficient to state a claim for violation of plaintiffs’ Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Oceana, Inc. v. Locke

725 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2010

McAllister disagrees with the agency’s conclusions regarding bias, “[w]hen specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as … With respect to Element 3, the EA clearly states that beyond just the “status quo” and the 30 percent CV level that was adopted, the Regional Councils “considered an approach that would have attempted to establish a separate

Lewis v. Executive Office for United State Attorneys

867 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2011

“[A] plaintiff pursuing an action under FOIA must establish that either: (1) the Vaughn index does not establish that the documents were properly withheld; (2) the agency has improperly claimed an exemption as a matter … Exemption 6 protects “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).

Slade v. Billington

700 F. Supp. 1134 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 1988

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of disparate treatment, a “plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] applied for an available position, for which [he] was qualified, … Even if plaintiff had carried his burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant has clearly articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for non-selecting the plaintiff.

National Mining Ass'n v. Slater

167 F. Supp. 2d 265 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2001

Section 202 establishes the functions of the ACHP. … June 8, 1996), in support of. their Establishment Clause argument.

Ali Mobarez v. Kerry

187 F. Supp. 3d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 2016

Precedent in this area makes it crystal clear that federal courts cannot answer “political questions” that are presented to them in the guise of legal issues, see infra Part III.A., but identifying which claims qualify … complaint (see Compl. ¶ 81 (stating that “Defendants unlawfully withheld and/or unreasona bly delayed agency action to which the Plaintiffs are entitled”)), and Defendants do not argue that Plaintiffs’ opposition brief qualifies

Cobar v. U.S. Department of Justice

81 F. Supp. 3d 64 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2015

Form 512, Confidential Source Establishment Form DEA Form 512, the Confidential Source Establishment Form, is a form that is “completed at the time a source is established by a DEA office.” (Supp. Decl. ¶ 20.) … Specifically, it does not appear that any of the generic conditions set forth in the Confidential Source Agreement, standing alone, qualify for protection under Exemption 7(D).

Shipman v. National Passenger Railroad Corporation (Amtrak)

76 F. Supp. 3d 173 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2014

The Court denied this request because Plaintiff does not qualify for appointment of counsel from the Court’s Civil Pro Bono Panel given that Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis. … Accordingly, the EEOC’s own regulations establish the scope of those to whom the EEOC can disclose a charge file.

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

683 F. Supp. 845 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 7, 1988

Such a rule would “emasculate the federal courts established authority to maintain the status quo.” … These decisions clearly minimize the importance of any showing of irreparable injury.

Leblanc v. United States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

District Court, District of Columbia · May 21, 2025

These features all clearly indicate that the Board was designed to be nonpartisan and act impartially. … “Economic harm may qualify as irreparable, however, ‘where a plaintiff’s alleged damages are unrecoverable.’” Nat’l Ass’n of Mortg. Brokers v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 773 F.

Hiv and Hepatitis Policy Institute v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2023

of Exchanges and Qualified Health Plans; Exchange Standards for Employers, 77 Fed. … statutory and regulatory definitions of “cost sharing,” as well as the APA’s well-established arbitrary and capricious test.

Rich v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2019

The parties’ dispute, then, relates to whether Rich suffered a “qualifying loss” under the TSGLI schedule of losses for a period of 60 consecutive days. A. … Andersonn is qualified for benefits. . . . Mr.

Truelove v. Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia

744 F. Supp. 307 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 1990

In determining when the “alleged unlawful employment practice” occurred that would trigger the limitations period, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that “the pendency of a grievance or some other method of collateral … By doing so, plaintiff “establish[es] facts adequate to permit an inference of retaliatory motive,” and therefore establishes a prima facie ease. Id. at 790 .

Bangoura v. United States Department of Army

607 F. Supp. 2d 134 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2009

Plaintiff, in his reply, asserted that he was entitled to declaratory relief based on Defendant’s “well-established pattern of delayed and ineffectual responses to Plaintiffs FOIA requests.” … Plaintiff did not dispute Defendant’s showing that the redacted information qualifies as a “personnel, medical or similar file” as contemplated by Exemption 6.

Inner City Broadcasting Corp. v. Cardenas

554 F. Supp. 42 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 1982

In fact, the SBA often clearly stated it had the power to leverage FRA money. For example, in a letter dated April 2, 1980 to Rep. Charles B. … The same letter elsewhere states “there is no doubt that funds supplied by FRA qualify as private capital for matching purposes.” Id.

Polyzopoulos v. Barr

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 2021

U.S. workers, [that Colonial Marble] did not establish its ability to pay, and [that Colonial Marble] willfully misrepresented that the job was clearly open to U.S. workers, a material fact.” … In its revocation notice, USCIS explained that Colonial Marble had not met its burden of establishing Mr.

Richardson v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2019

A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252. … Even within the context of a retaliation claim, “[a]n employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work.”

Creaghan v. Austin

District Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 2022

[military] environment, and aggregated with other non-immunized individuals in steady state operations, would place health and safety, unit cohesion, and readiness at risk.” … Plaintiff appears to rest that argument on the Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff in Navy SEAL “has not carried his burden to show that he is ‘clearly warranted’ preliminary relief.” 2022 WL 1294486, at *4.