Case law

Penkoski v. Bowser

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2021

Either (a) the Mural is government speech immune from a viewpoint 10 Another Judge in this District concluded that the Mural was government speech. See Frederick Douglass Found., Inc. v. District of Columbia, No. … So the Court considers this question anew. 9 discrimination claim but at risk of violating the Establishment Clause, or (b) it is private speech safe from the Establishment

Sparrow v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2024

WMATA’s policies permit employees to take extended periods of FMLA leave as well as intermittent leave for qualifying reasons, including the birth of a child. … WMATA claims that the “only possible employment decision that qualifies as materially adverse” is the three-day suspension following the OIG investigation. Mot. at 8.

Jordan v. United States Department of Labor

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2018

However, based on DOL’s proffered justifications and the Court’s in camera review, the Court concluded that only one email visibly qualified as privileged. See id. at 231–32. … Jordan contends that (1) the Court’s findings about the content of the DynCorp emails were not established and were refuted by evidence in the public record; (2) no evidence on record established that Mr.

United States v. Wright

233 F. Supp. 3d 165 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 2, 2017

The distributed photograph clearly shows the robber’s face. Gov’t Ex. H-7. … Wright had not signed the waiver, that would not conclusively establish that he had not waived his Miranda rights.

Miller v. United States Department of Justice

872 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 3, 2012

See Davis, 968 F.2d at 1280 (holding that documents could be withheld unless the plaintiff clearly showed that they were in the public domain). … Confidentiality can be established expressly or impliedly.

Initiative & Referendum Institute v. United States Postal Service

181 F. Supp. 3d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2014

In determining whether a plaintiff qualifies as a “prevailing party” for purposes of EAJA, courts in this Circuit apply the standard articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. … The Court already knew that the Postal Service was not applying the Regulation to Grace-like sidewalks (ie., those sidewalks that clearly constitute public forums).

Taylor v. District of Columbia

840 F. Supp. 2d 348 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 17, 2012

Clearly, Judge Kay, who granted in part plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, found Judge Kennedy’s conclusions as to the Second Amended Complaint to be equally applicable to the Third Amended Complaint. … Code § 2-412, concerning governmental immunity for negligent operation of vehicles by District employees).

Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

691 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2010

The local rule also clearly states that a party’s failure to file an opposition may be treated as a concession of the motion. … The Westfall Act grants federal employees immunity from common law tort claims that arise out of the acts taken in the scope of their employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (b)(1); Osborn v.

Aguiar v. Drug Enforcement Administration

139 F. Supp. 3d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2015

Although the FOIA does not define the term “agency record,” see id. at 215, the Supreme Court has identified two requirements that must be met in order for requested materials to qualify as “agency records”: (1) the “agency … Even though the DEA did not “create” the mapping software, it clearly “obtained” it for use at plaintiff’s trial.

Shays v. Federal Election Commission

337 F. Supp. 2d 28 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2004

Nor did Congress evince any intent to qualify the reach of this provision of FECA, or to exclude from its reach any particular type of “coordination.” … Moreover, it is unclear to the Court how the FEC could, in the absence of the “Grandfather” provision, find an entity which was clearly established by a political actor covered by 2 U.S.C. § 441i not to be “established” by

Henderson v. United States Department of Justice

157 F. Supp. 3d 42 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2016

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). … The Court is satisfied that “the names and related telephone and email identifying information” about government employees and stenograph court reporters, see Jolly Decl. ¶ 20, qualify as “similar files” insofar as this

Narenji v. Civiletti

481 F. Supp. 1132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 1979

Defendants here allude to three interests that might qualify as “overriding national interests” justifying their discriminatory regulation: 1) the protection of the lives of the hostages held in Iran by quelling potential … the authority to, in effect, assume the role of Congress, the elected, representative body with which the primary responsibility for immigration policy making rests, and thus assure that its actions will be afforded that immunity

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

703 F. Supp. 962 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 1988

Managerial prerogatives may become part of the status quo if established by past practice. … Eastern’s furloughing plan clearly constitutes such a decision. The breadth of Eastern’s proposed furloughs cannot be ignored.

Diggs v. Potter

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2010

There is no requirement that any employee have any medical information on file in order to qualify for or request sick leave.” (Pl. Opp. at 20.) … Plaintiff clearly demonstrates that he repeatedly documented the Postal Service’s decision to send him home, and that the Agency knew it.

Environmental Defense v. Leavitt

329 F. Supp. 2d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2004

The court sees nothing more remarkable in the mention of § 7492(e) than in the mention of § 7491(a)(4), which CEED views as “clearly ... … In response, EPA argues that the court should not allow CEED to intervene because CEED has not established standing, has failed to identify a common claim or defense, and does not qualify for the flexibility applied to cases

Parada Orellana v. Hann's Harvard, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2026

At least one handwritten schedule does not clearly state the pay period. ECF No. 12-1, at 10-11 (indicating that Mr. Parada Orellana worked sixty-three hours that week). On average, Mr. … Supp. 3d 37, 43 (D.D.C. 2017) (explaining that an individual can be held liable where he qualifies as an “employer” under the relevant statute).

National Fair Housing Alliance v. Travelers Indemnity Company

261 F. Supp. 3d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2017

Supp. 3d at 572 (“[e]ven if landlords have the prerogative under federal law to reject Section 8 tenants, there is no sound reason why insurers should be immunized from claims of discrimination when such landlords have decided … The plaintiffs’ expert “compare[d] the percentages of Hispanics and whites who were qualified home buyers in the identified price ranges in the Yuma market” during 2007–2009. Id. at 1049.

City of Rome, Ga. v. United States

472 F. Supp. 221 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 1979

Although Rome is clearly not a “political subdivision” for purposes of section 4(a), a stronger argument can be made that, under Sheffield, it is a “State” within the meaning of that section. … Finney, 437 U.S. 678 , 98 S.Ct. 2565 , 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978), upholding the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 against the claim that it infringed the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. .

Scarlett v. Office of Inspector General

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2023

Cir. 1974), for the proposition that “administrative” and “regulatory” investigations qualify as law enforcement “purposes” under Exemption 7, in addition to investigations of criminal and civil law-violations. … “Exemption 6 protects information about individuals in ‘personnel and medical files and similar files’ when its disclosure ‘would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’” Shapiro v. U.S.

Lucas v. District of Columbia

133 F. Supp. 3d 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2015

To establish futility, resort to the administrative process “must appear clearly useless, either because the agency charged [with the process] has indicated that it does not have jurisdiction over the dispute, or because … Irreparable injury must be established by a clear showing that no remedy exists to repair the injury. Id. at 109.