Case law

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. National Labor Relations Board

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2020

In short, this Court misapprehended Plaintiff’s requested remedy for the first APA violation that it successfully identified—which qualifies as a clear error, see Singh, 383 F. … And, here, the NLRB has clearly done so. See, e.g., 84 Fed.

Kowal v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2020

Exemption 6 protects information in personnel and medical files when disclosure would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Id. § 552(b)(6). … Pl’s Br. at 30. 15 All information that “applies to a particular individual” qualifies for consideration under Exemption 6. U.S. Dep’t of State v. Wash.

Feemster v. BSA Limited Partnership

471 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 12, 2007

These notices matured on or about July 6, 2005, which is the first time that the plaintiffs’ units could have qualified as non-rental property. … The plain language of the current version of the CPPA clearly provides that “[t]he department may not ... apply the provisions of section 28-3905 ... to landlord tenant relations.”

Farzam v. Isaacson

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2015

She therefore qualified for a “hard pass” as an accredited news representative to the White House. Ms. Farzam also held press credentials from the State Department and Congress. Ms. … Clearly, Ms. Farzam did not contact an EEO counselor until 2010.

Bell v. Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2018

The Eastern District of Virginia clearly adjudicated plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims. Def.’s Ex. 12 at 41–4. … The Eastern District of Virginia very clearly addressed and dismissed plaintiff’s claims that she suffered a constructive suspension based on adverse action.

Initiative & Refer v. USPS

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2010

Kokinda sidewalks is vague in three respects: 1) “it provides no substance to the phrase ‘physically distinguishable,’ leaving it entirely to the discretion of the enforcing official[,]” 2) “it is unclear what sidewalks qualify … “It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972).

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti

285 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2003

“A statute qualifies as a withholding statute under Exemption 3 ... where ‘Congress has itself made the basic decision, and has left to the administrator only the task of administration.’ ” Wis. … Exemption 6 Exemption 6 exempts an agency from producing under FOIA “personnel and medical flies and similar files,” when the release of such records would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Jackson v. Government of the District of Columbia

975 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2013

The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. … Overdetentions caused by the District’s ordinance are clearly constitutional violations executed in accordance with District policy officially adopted and promulgated by the Council.” Id. at 282.

Bilal-Edwards v. United Planning Organization

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 2014

In order to establish a prima facie case in the context of an ADEA employment termination claim, the plaintiff must show that he (1) belongs to the statutorily protected age group, (2) was qualified for the position, (3 … Here, the plaintiff’s EEOC complaint clearly alleges age discrimination, and so the Court will consider the plaintiff’s claims about the odor at the Alabama Avenue facility as the basis for a possible inference of discrimination

Kilmer v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2023

Exemption 6 protects information contained in “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). … As discussed above, the Court finds that CBP has established that the responsive records logically and plausibly fall within the claimed exemptions.

Bennett v. Donovan

74 F. Supp. 3d 382 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 24, 2014

This bare assertion is insufficient to establish the market rate for paralegal work in Washington, D.C. … Count IV concerned a regulation first passed in 1989, which specifies when a mortgage may become due and payable to qualify for federal insurance.

Campbell v. District of Columbia

126 F. Supp. 3d 141 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2015

Court of Appeals has recognized that the qualified common interest privilege governs “anything said or written by a master in giving the character of a servant who has been in his or her employment.” Wallace v. … Court of Appeals, has recognized the employment-based common interest privilege when the statement is “made in good faith in answer to an inquiry by one contemplating employment of the servant ” — a condition clearly not

Khatchadourian v. Defense Intelligence Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2020

In light of DIA’s prompt rectification of what was clearly a mere oversight, the Court concludes that plaintiff has not shown evidence of bad faith. 30 C. … To qualify under Exemption 3, a statute “(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or (ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers

Wright v. Saul

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 2024

To qualify for SSI benefits under the Act, a claimant must show she is “disabled.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(1). … As the court noted, it is clearly established in this Circuit that ‘“[t]he judiciary can scarcely perform its assigned review function, limited though it is, without some indication not only of what evidence was credited

Tyler v. Alfa Laval, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 2013

Markowitz’s March 7, 2011 declaration, that declaration is also clearly insufficient to satisfy the Boomer causation standard. In that declaration, Dr. … All that this analogy demonstrates is that a sufficient cause also necessarily qualifies as a substantial contributing factor.

Hodge v. United Airlines

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 21, 2011

Although the record clearly establishes that Dr. … Hodge contends that his FMLA claim should survive because he qualifies as an eligible employee based on this amendment to the FMLA.

University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Leavitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2010

The Hospital’s Request for an Adjustment to its Target Amount Because of its status as a leading cancer center, the Hospital qualifies to be reimbursed for its inpatient services on a reasonable cost basis as … In addition, the court noted that defendant’s “interpretation of the reasonable cost provisions is clearly inconsistent with the Secretary’s prior interpretations of, and precedents established under, those regulations.

United States v. Taylor

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 10, 2020

resumption of a “limited number” of single-defendant trials of short duration with few and primarily local witnesses, see Standing Order 20-89 at 4, Chief Judge Howell subsequently suspended that narrow exception before any qualifying … Even if those Orders did not themselves operate to exclude time, they clearly inform this Court’s own ends-of-justice exclusions by offering critical underlying facts — namely, that public-health conditions have necessitated

Citrus Hma, LLC v. Azar

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2022

(III) The hospital would qualify as a rural, regional, or national referral center under paragraph (5)(C) or as a sole community hospital under paragraph (5)(D) if the hospital were located in a rural … The Secretary may not “avoid the Congressional intent clearly expressed in the text simply by asserting that [his] preferred approach would be better policy.” Friends of Earth, Inc. v. E.P.A., 446 F.3d 140, 145 (D.C.

Parker v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 5, 2018

“To have a protected property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … It is the movant’s burden to establish that summary judgment is appropriate.