Case law

Baloch v. Norton

517 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2007

The plaintiff continued making EEOC complaints between August and November 2003, clearly undeterred by Lo-man’s measures taken in March, April and October that same year. … Moreover, the fourth amended complaint does not clearly indicate that the instances of retaliation should be considered collectively as well as individually. See, e.g., Am.

Magassa v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 11, 2023

With that established, the Court turns to the reasons that the FBI invoked Exemption 7(C) to withhold information. … Even assuming that this qualifies as a significant public interest, Magassa has not shown how the material withheld would advance that interest.

Beach Tv Properties Inc. v. Soloman

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 24, 2020

“When an expert witness is required, the expert must ‘clearly articulate and reference a standard of care by which the defendant’s actions can be measured.’” Robinson v. Wash. Metro. … Garibaldi is qualified to do, and that it is appropriate to establish through expert testimony. See id. 1–2. From ACI’s perspective, Mr. Solomon’s motion does nothing to undermine the reliability of Mr.

Viropharma Incorporated v. Department of Health and Human Services

839 F. Supp. 2d 184 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2012

#06-0200) that 2  abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) or applications filed under 505(b)(2) for vancomycin hydrochloride capsules qualify … Exemption 6 “allows an agency to withhold ‘personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’”

Tucker v. Johnson

211 F. Supp. 3d 95 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2016

But inappropriate conduct, without more, is insufficient to establish a hostile work environment claim. … Cir. 2014) (“A ‘statement that itself shows . . . bias in the employment decision’ qualifies as direct evidence.”) (citation omitted); see also Vatel v. All. of Auto. Mfrs., 627 F.3d 1245, 1246–47 (D.C.

Tsehaye v. William C. Smith & Co., Inc.

402 F. Supp. 2d 185 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2005

Channell also gave Tsehaye a formal letter to this effect, which clearly expressed Channell’s views that 2701 did not need two full-time employees and that Tsehaye’s position would likely be the one reduced to a part-time … Termination from employment certainly qualifies as an adverse employment action, see Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761 , 118 S.Ct. 2257 , 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998), and there is no debate that, as an African of Ethiopian nationality

Clasp v. Hassan

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2025

Pension benefits, for example, qualify as terms, conditions, or privileges of employment . . . .”). … Supp. 2d at 96-97 (noting that this distinction can be “made even more difficult by the plaintiff’s own failure to clearly and distinctly plead [their] cause of action in this regard”); see also Am.

Eco Tour Adventures, Inc. v. Jewell

249 F. Supp. 3d 360 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 2017

AR 24 (Prospectus, noting that NPS “has determined the [] existing Concessioners are qualified contracts and therefore the existing Concessioners are Preferred Offerors for the new Contracts”). … Thus, on balance between the parties in this case, the equities clearly favor the plaintiff.

Segar v. Ashcroft

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 2019

In addition to establishing the Working Group, the parties also submitted proposals for further relief. Id. … Agents on the BQ list were all considered equally as qualified for advancement to the vacant position. Id.

Republic of Argentina v. BG GROUP PLC

715 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2010

“state of necessity” doctrine, it is far from certain that the doctrine is “clearly applicable” in this case. … At best, the similarities between the witness statements establish that counsel drafted the declarations in both cases.

Barry v. United States Capitol Guide Board

636 F. Supp. 2d 95 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 21, 2009

The ability to reasonably make that assessment is obscured by the fact that the Board also had before it recent disciplinary allegations, which clearly supported its termination decision. … While the plaintiff advances his argument that he has established retaliation by direct evidence, he never actually identifies the evidence that qualifies as direct evidence. PL's Opp’n at 15-16.

America First Legal Foundation v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 2, 2024

While Exemption 6 is limited to records “the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), “[t]he adverb ‘clearly’ . . . is not used in Exemption 7(C),” … By any measure, the Spreadsheet Report qualifies for Exemption 7.1 None of AFLF’s arguments to the contrary is persuasive.

Center for Biological Diversity v. Zinke

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 12, 2020

This extensive statutory framework includes substantive definition of matters such as, inter alia, what qualifies a species as “endangered,” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6), how a “species” is defined, id. § 1532(16); 50 C.F.R. § 424.11 … The Circuit’s separate analysis of section 10(c) in a subsequent case reached the same conclusion, highlighting section 10(c)’s use of the word “shall” and finding that its requirement of publication “clearly creates a

Huckstep v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

216 F. Supp. 3d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 24, 2016

However, the detailed description of the accident contained within the report clearly indicates that WMATA rated the accident “Preventable–Major.” Compare Huckstep Acc. … Bowlding clearly does not qualify as a valid comparator. Nevertheless, an employee may attempt to establish pretext through another route.

Methodist Hospitals of Memphis v. Sullivan

799 F. Supp. 1210 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 1992

process for such costs and how such review would inevitably inform the content of any definition of the term “allowable”; we can find no cause to conclude that Congress nevertheless meant to convey some different, more qualified … The Court noted that Congress had provided for a transition period during which it was clear that Congress meant to keep some of the previous system intact, 862 F.2d at 327 , and that Congress also clearly knew how to provide

Window Specialists, Inc. v. Forney Enterprises, Inc.

47 F. Supp. 3d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 10, 2014

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, a lay witness may testify only as to opinions that are “(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining … Donnelly will have to be qualified as an expert before he can present opinions that are outside the scope of Rule 701 and within the scope of Rule 702.

Clemente v. Federal Bureau of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2010

It is established, however, that “[t]he adequacy of a search is not determined by its results, but by the method of the search itself.” Harrison v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 681 F. … Clemente that the informants to which the redacted passages appear to refer do not qualify as “current” by any stretch of the imagination.

National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2026

Defendants do not dispute that, if the statute is valid and applicable, then the ballroom qualifies as a "structure" in a "park ... of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia." Defs.' Suppl. Br. at 29. … I previously concluded that these alleged aesthetic injuries established a substantial likelihood of Article III standing. See Mem.

Food and Water Watch, Inc. v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 10, 2018

Defendants qualified their responses by stating that, because both Cordish and Gribbin no longer worked at the White House Office, their availability was limited. (Id. at 13.) … “In order to avoid burdening a sovereign that proves to be immune from suit, however, jurisdictional discovery should be carefully controlled and limited. . . .” Id. (citing Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v.

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 8, 2021

Indeed, Plaintiff has affirmative proof that the FBI did not place a number of clearly responsive emails concerning Carmody in the CRS. See Marshall Decl. Exs. 6-7. As the D.C. … 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.