Case law

National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. Meese

615 F. Supp. 200 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 2, 1985

Although the parties have briefed and *202 argued a great many issues, 4 two fundamental principles of law so clearly stand as obstacles to the grant of relief by the Court that none of the other issues is open for consideration … The EEOC also has the authority to grant immunity to employers who follow the interpretations and opinions of the Commission. See also, Albemarle Paper Co. v.

Udugampola v. Jacobs

70 F. Supp. 3d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2014

The plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ decision “lacks the minimum specificity required to qualify as a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the visa denial” because “the Consulate not only has failed to point … By contrast, here the plaintiffs are clearly on notice that Mr.

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Noem

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 2025

The January 23 Huffman Memorandum also included a few qualifiers to its directives. … But the Notice did not qualify its own actions with that or any similar language. 2.

Bryant v. Secretary of the Army

862 F. Supp. 574 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 1994

The Court is of the opinion that the inclusion of a “letters to the editor” section — a feature that clearly does not reflect government speech in any ordinary sense of the term — removes any doubt that the CENs are not to … Accordingly, the Court cannot accept the argument that the regulation in question is immune from the Plaintiffs First Amendment challenges, because the “letters to the editor” section of the newspaper cannot properly be classified

Williams v. Chertoff

495 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2007

Read in context or standing alone, the cited language clearly applies to a plaintiffs pretext showing, not to his establishment of a prima facie case: if the court disbelieves a defendant’s asserted non-discriminatory explanation … Thus, neither officer clearly committed a "more serious, perhaps even criminal offense,” and neither received "favorable treatment.” 15 .

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of the Army

435 F. Supp. 2d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2006

To invoke the deliberate-process privilege, the defendant must establish two prerequisites. Id. … KBR is clearly not an agency of the government, and the defendant did not hire KBR to help with the deliberations of the agency.

Sierra Club v. Mainella

459 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 25, 2012

Public Citizen involved circumstances where the agency clearly had “no ability” to take actions that could lessen the environmental impacts of concern to the plaintiffs. 541 U.S. at 766 , 124 S.Ct. 2204 . … But commenters stated they hiked in those areas (AR-C 0225), and NPS’s explanation clearly did not account for hikers.

Danielsen v. Dole

746 F. Supp. 160 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 1990

determination that aircraft workers are better suited than technicians to perform inspection and repair of aircraft in operation, as required by the maintenance service contract, because unlike technicians, aircraft workers are qualified … a clearly defined or specific duty under the SCA to enforce retroactive wage determinations or to institute enforcement proceedings in every case.

Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 21, 2011

Plaintiffs’ desire to post signs bearing political messages therefore easily qualifies as protected by the First Amendment. … Taking plaintiff’s allegations as true, as we must at this stage of the proceedings, Atherton, 567 F.3d at 681, ANSWER clearly satisfies the first half of the test by stating a constitutional violation.

Thomas v. Pompeo

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2020

deny their visa application, “but rather the failure of Defendants to, properly and within a reasonable time, perform their mandatory, non-discretionary duty to adjudicate [plaintiff’s] visa application and waiver, which clearly … HUVELLE United States District Judge Date: February 7, 2020 6 Judge Cooper applied the TRAC factors and concluded that “Plaintiffs have failed to establish that

Simms v. Center for Correctional Health & Policy Studies

794 F. Supp. 2d 173 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 5, 2011

Fellow employees also noticed that Masi looked Simms up and down, clearly “checking her out” whenever she passed. Id. at 5:2-9. … First, CCHPS argues that Simms’ status as an owner/operator of CCHPS renders it immune to her allegations.

Campbell v. Natl Railroad Pass

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 26, 2018

Roth is certainly qualified “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Indeed, as Mr. … Feb. 14, 1997) (class not clearly defined because, to ascertain class membership, the court would be required to “answer several fact-intensive questions”).

Harris v. District of Columbia

741 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 1990

The Secretary’s regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 establish a long and a short test of *260 whether a worker fits the executive exemption. … Because this is how plaintiffs spend the bulk of their time, they clearly cannot be employed in a bona fide executive capacity.

Lewis v. Mnuchin

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2021

Mestre’s refusal to discuss Plaintiff’s performance evaluation with her in person also cannot qualify as a materially adverse action. … Supp. 2d 78, 92 (D.D.C. 2005) (“Occasional instances of less favorable treatment involving ordinary daily workplace decisions are not sufficient to establish a hostile work environment.”).

Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund v. Schafer

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2009

Zones were established in Michigan by the 2002 MOU based on the risk level for bovine TB. The 2002 MOU “did not establish the use of electronic ear tags as a condition of maintaining zone status.” … -14- may be influenced by such desires as qualifying for split-state status, that goal does not rob state officials of decision authority.

Apton v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

233 F. Supp. 3d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 17, 2017

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446 (establishing procedures for removal), 1447 (establishing procedures for remand after removal). … (See Pl.’s Remand Mot. at 9 (explaining that the $100,000 figure listed on the civil cover sheet was “clearly an oversight”).)

Ateba v. Jean-Pierre

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 7, 2023

On August 1, 2023, the White House directed the Secret Service to deactivate hard passes for approximately 500 journalists who did not qualify under the new Hard Pass Policy. Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ … Ateba does not challenge the immunity of the White House Press Office from APA review. See Pl.’s Reply at 11.

Young v. Covington & Burling, LLP

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2010

The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these three elements of standing. Id. … Comp. ¶ 4, does not aid her attempt establish standing.

Cook v. Babbitt

819 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 1993

They clearly reflect a gender-conscious state of mind on the part of Alexander, Chiles, and Rambur. … Having concluded that the plaintiff established a prima facie case as a matter of law, the next task is to determine whether defendant has met its burden of going forward with evidence that could support a non-“clearly erroneous

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Local 689, Amalgamated Transit Union

113 F. Supp. 3d 121 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2015

Thus, WMATA clearly has set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 1  I. … The Compact does not require WMATA to arbitrate the grievances of individuals who do not qualify as statutory “employees” as defined in the NLRA.