Case law

Njang v. Whitestone Group, Inc.

187 F. Supp. 3d 172 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 18, 2016

the security referrals themselves—regardless of any subsequent investigation—could dissuade a reasonable worker from bringing a discrimination claim, see id., it is highly doubtful that a false referral, on its own, would qualify … Ackerman accused me of not being able to speak clearly and asserted that I spoke like a ‘monkey from Africa’ and that I needed a translator for him to understand me. Mr.

Yusuff v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2025

Yusuff disputes none of these arguments, and her Amended Complaint fails to allege how she qualifies for an ADA claim. … Yusuff “does not plead facts necessary to establish either an FMLA interference claim [n]or a[n] FMLA retaliation claim.” Id. at 17. It faults Ms.

Goings v. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 2011

Amendment or qualified immunity, or no personal involvement in the complained-of misconduct. 2010 U.S. … Aug. 16, 2010) (probationer’s liberty interest in being free from sex offender treatment is not “clearly established” and would not appear “unlawful to objectively reasonable official.”).

Fuller v. Winter

538 F. Supp. 2d 179 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2008

The underlying basis for Petitioner’s non-judicial punishment clearly established a pattern of misconduct over a substantial period of time. … With that established, it is evident that the Secretary’s decision in this, case fails to pass muster.

Ahmed v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2022

The APA by its terms waives sovereign immunity only for “relief other than money damages.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. … Siddiqui became documentarily qualified, in June 2020. Defs.’

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

985 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2013

To qualify for withholding under the deliberative process privilege, the withheld material must be both predecisional and deliberative. … Plaintiff argues that the Bureau has not demonstrated the attorney client privilege applies because it has not specifically established the lawyer client relationship. Id.

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

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2021

The plaintiff first must establish a prima facie case. Jones, 557 F.3d at 677. … Facing this proffered explanation, Harris could seek to establish that “a reasonable employer would have found [her] to be significantly better qualified for the job.” Aka, 156 F.3d at 1294.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. General Services Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 17, 2018

Even with the misspelling, several documents produced by the second search contained the terms “FBI” and “FBI Headquarters”—two terms GSA included in its initial search—and clearly concerned the cancellation of the consolidated … “To establish that a document is covered by the privilege, the government must show that it is both ‘predecisional’ and ‘deliberative.’” Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 320 F.

United States v. Reffitt

District Court, District of Columbia · May 4, 2022

In fact, the Court explained that “aiding and abetting the assaults” would qualify as unlawful means. Feb. 18, 2022 Tr. at 10:19–21, Dkt. 112. … According to Jackson, Reffitt was “clearly very, very, very upset.” Id. at 1005:20. Jackson later told the FBI about these threats and Reffitt’s activities before and on January 6.

Hisler v. Gallaudet University

344 F. Supp. 2d 29 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 21, 2004

In June of 1986, upon exposure to the Epstein-Barr virus during the course of her employment at Kendall School, the plaintiff was diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome (“CFIDS”). Am. … The last page of the order clearly laid out instructions regarding further review rights through the Federal Circuit. Id. at 2. The plaintiff chose not to pursue that remedy and instead brought her claim here.

Guzman v. Boeing Co.

366 F. Supp. 3d 219 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2019

The fact that the jury reduced its award by a third establishes that it considered the issue of mitigation, and reasonably concluded that Ms. … Moreover, if there was any error, it was clearly harmless. With respect to Dr.

In Re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation

953 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2013

Therefore, although the negotiation of the Settlement Agreement by class counsel clearly was a “necessary catalyst” without which additional funding for this action may well not have materialized, In re Black Farmers Discr … Given the difficulty of determining with certainty whether particular individuals truly qualified for relief under Section 14012, counsel also ran the risk that many of their clients would be found ineligible even before

United States v. Panayiotou

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 2023

The SRA and Court Supervision The SRA abolished “the previous . . . parole release system,” SRA § 236(a)(1), and established a new regime consisting of two alternative means of court supervision. … Under the series qualifier approach, the phrase “that is not a petty offense” would directly modify the phrase “same . . . offense.”

Imamura v. Gen. Elec. Co.

371 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2019

The ADR Center is a public mediation forum established under Japanese law. It is therefore independent from TEPCO, and TEPCO cannot unilaterally withdraw. … The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act likely renders the Japanese government beyond the reach of the Court as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1602 .

Rabbani v. Obama

76 F. Supp. 3d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2014

Here, while a purported right to be free from force-feeding may possibly qualify under the rubric of the constitutional right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, see Aamer v. … Inj. 5, Rabbani clearly implies that he had previously refused to walk voluntarily to his force-feedings.

International Internship Programs v. Napolitano

853 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2012

Accordingly, the AAO concluded that the structure of the program "is contrary to the regulatory requirements that must be adhered to by qualified employers." Id. at 1207. … requires a court to set aside final agency action that it finds to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law"; or "contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Wonders v. McHugh

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2012

Because the Court finds that the Army properly relied on Exemption 7(C), the Court need not “consider Exemption 6 separately because all information that would fall within the scope of Exemption 6 would also be immune from … However, the letter clearly states “I would approve the sick leave if he has submitted a 71, however, I would make sure he is aware that if he does not follow the appropriate procedures in the future, that any requests

Lincoln Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Wall

743 F. Supp. 901 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 1990

This case clearly proves this point. … This acquisition was to be made in cash and was to qualify as a contribution to Lincoln’s regulatory capital. See Agreement (May 20, 1988), PI.Ex. 858. .

Price v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 2019

Simply identifying laws that establish recordkeeping requirements does not do the trick for Price, since all that may show is that some of the records he complains are missing may well qualify as records under the FRA. … Most importantly, the former, unlike the latter, is clearly stated in the conditional tense.

Bernard v. United States Department of Defense

362 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2005

Timothy Sheehan concluded the plaintiff was not qualified to remain in the Army. Id. at 493. … A plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion to establish subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. McNutt v. Gen.