Case law

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 1, 2009

As discussed at length above, the class of proceedings identified by DOJ is too broad and hypothetical to qualify as 7 This “predictive judgment,” Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. … Clearly, the Court’s decision reflects a concern for the chilling effects that such disclosure would have on future agency deliberations.” 984 F. Supp. at 68 (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. at 151).

Cause of Action v. Internal Revenue Service

125 F. Supp. 3d 145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2015

Defendant has not established that all of its withholdings under Exemption 3 and section 6103 were justified. … See 267 F.3d at 1138 (declining to determine “whether propositions that were neither factual nor legal qualified as ‘data’”).

Lyles v. District of Columbia Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 2011

Plaintiff argues that she was qualified for this position because her previous experience included the evaluation and assessment of DMH personnel from 1994 to 2000, which matched the duties of the new position. (Id.) … Plaintiff argues that she was qualified for this position because her previous experience included evaluation of community-based sites and provision of clinical services to the mentally ill, both duties required by the

Canning v. United States Department of State

134 F. Supp. 3d 490 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2015

Reg. 707 (Dec. 29, 2009), which establishes procedural and substantive requirements for classification. … [is] sufficiently specific to qualify for withholding under Exemption 1 in light of the substantial weight owed agency explanations in the context of national security.” See Larson v.

Zano v. Department of Veterans Affairs

District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2024

Here, the plaintiff clearly engaged in protected activity when she first “brought these issues [of alleged discrimination] to the Office of Resolution Management [ ] in 2017,” Compl. § III(E), and then filed an EEOC charge … To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, the plaintiff must allege that “(1) she was a qualified individual with a disability[;] (2) her employer knew of her disability[

Lever Bros. Co. v. United States

796 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 18, 1992

IV Conclusion Neither the legislative history of the statute nor' the administrative practice of *6 the Customs Service clearly contradicts the plain meaning of section 42. … Plaintiff has moved the Court to reconsider the amended Order because it objects to the qualifier “materially” and moves, therefore, that it be deleted. The motion is without basis.

Marta v. McCarthy

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2021

Pursuant to the Act, the Department of Defense (“DOD”) issued Directive-Type Memorandum 09-003 (“DTM 09-003”), which, among other things, established the policy “for authorizing the transferability of education benefits … Under this more deferential standard, “[f]or a plaintiff to overcome the strong presumption that the military administrators discharged their duties lawfully and in good faith, he must show ‘by cogent and clearly convincing

District No. 1, Pacific Coast District, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, Afl-Cio v. American Maritime Officers

75 F. Supp. 3d 294 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 5, 2014

First, MEBA explains that the well-pleaded complaint rule prevents AMO from relying on a preemption defense to establish federal question jurisdiction. … This means that the supposed unavailability of Article XX proceedings in the instant case is largely an impediment of MEBA’s own making, and in any event, it is an impediment that MEBA clearly has the power to remove.

Laroque v. Holder

831 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 2011

Section 4(b) determines which jurisdictions qualify as "covered." 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(b). … ("ADA"), and that Title II of the ADA abrogated Georgia's sovereign immunity. Id. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the ADA's attempted abrogation of Georgia's sovereign immunity was invalid. Id.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

288 F. Supp. 2d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2003

Qumri’s position as a Senior Financial Systems Analyst qualifies as a “specialty occupation.” … One well-established canon of statutory construction militates against a finding of jurisdiction.

Lee v. Government of the District of Columbia

920 F. Supp. 2d 127 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 2013

Nevertheless, conclusory assertions offered without any evidentiary support do not establish a genuine issue for trial. Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C. Cir. 1999). … Lee because he was clearly, repeatedly, asleep on the job.

Stand Up for California! v. United States Department of Interior

71 F. Supp. 3d 109 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2014

The federal defendants and the Tribe are clearly correct. … J); that “if a referendum petition qualifies for the ballot, the statute will not go into effect until the day following the election, if at all,” id.; and that since a referendum had qualified for the November 2014 California

In Re: Mark J. Watson

910 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2012

. §§ 701–06, which establish a cause of action for parties adversely affected either by agency actions or by an agency’s failure to act. See Petition at 2. … While pro se litigants are afforded more leniency in presenting their cases, Watson’s “pro se status does not render him immune from pleading facts upon which a valid claim can rest.” Id. at *3 (citing Ledford v.

Wye Oak Technology, Inc. v. Republic of Iraq

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 2019

The law at issue in the cases cited by Iraq and MoD is clearly not applicable to this suit. … Second, defendants allege Wye Oak was not qualified to perform.

Fort Sill Apache Tribe v. National Indian Gaming Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2020

Nor do the connections established clearly indicate that Akela Flats has maintained its significance in the eyes of tribal members. … Second, the Tribe argues that Akela Flats qualifies as restored lands. (Pl.’s Resp. at 17– 20.)

Airlie Foundation v. Internal Revenue Service

283 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2003

According to defendant, the administrative record clearly demonstrates that the “commercial hue” of plaintiffs conference center activities disqualifies it as a tax exempt organization pursuant to Section 501(c)(8). … The final determination letter underscores the IRS’ proper understanding and application of the “operations test”: You have failed to establish that you are operated exclusively for charitable or educational purposes within

AFL-CIO v. McLaughlin

702 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 1988

This provision clearly aims at preventing growers from raising productivity rates rather than piece rates whenever the [AEWR] increases. … That meant that every time a percentage increase was added to the average hourly wage, thereby establishing the AEWR, the same percentage increase was applied to the piece rate.

American Wild Horse Campaign v. Zinke

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 2020

“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements.” … Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Guidance binds EPA regional directors and thus qualifies as final agency action.” (emphasis added)).

St. Paul Mercury Insurance v. Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc.

627 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2009

Without expert testimony “offer[ing] credible evidence sufficient to establish a controlling standard of care,” Briggs, 481 F.3d at 841 , Capitol Sprinkler cannot establish that St. … Clearly he believed that the strength of his case depended largely upon the testimony of these witnesses in their particular areas of expertise”).

United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry v. Thornburgh

768 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 1991

For purposes of this litigation, an immigrant may be defined as an alien entering the United States with the intention of establishing permanent residence. See id. § 1101(a)(15). … An H-2B visa may be issued only upon (1) A certification from the Secretary of Labor stating that qualified workers in the United States are not available and that the alien’s employment will not adversely affect wages and