Oliver Gasch

This case involved a motion for attorney's fees following a plaintiff's successful bench trial judgment of $150,000 against Howard University in a civil rights matter. The court awarded fees at a rate of $300 per hour based on the prevailing market rate for experienced civil rights attorneys. The reasoning relied on Supreme Court precedents in Hensley v. Eckerhart and Blum v. Stenson, as well as the D.C. Circuit's en banc decision in Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Hodel, which require applying the market rate even for attorneys who charge reduced rates, and the retainer agreement's proviso that any court-awarded fees would control the amount owed. The university did not contest the hours worked or costs requested.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In Park v. Howard University, plaintiff Soon Y. Park alleged that Howard University discriminated against her on the basis of national origin and gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including by delaying her promotion and creating a hostile work environment through ongoing conduct. Earlier, the court found for the plaintiff and awarded lost wages and medical expenses while noting a basis for further damages; this memorandum addresses the amount of compensatory damages under the 1991 amendments to Title VII. The court decided to award $150,000 in compensatory damages, holding that the 1991 Act's provisions for such damages apply to the defendant's pre-amendment conduct because the discriminatory actions constituted a continuing violation that persisted after the amendments took effect. The core reasoning relied on Supreme Court precedents establishing a firm rule of retroactivity for new rules of federal law, such as Bradley v. Richmond School Board and Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation, while distinguishing the case from Landgraf v. USI Film Products due to the absence of prompt remedial action by the defendant and the ongoing nature of the misconduct; the award was also limited by the two-year back-pay accrual period under Title VII.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved claims by several senior GAO employees over age 50 that they were denied promotion to the Senior Executive Service through the Executive Candidate Development Program and other means due to age discrimination. After a trial, the court found that the GAO had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting the plaintiffs, based on their employment records and supervisor testimony indicating they were not among the most exceptional candidates required for such positions. Statistical analyses presented at trial further demonstrated that the selection process was age-neutral. The court therefore ruled in favor of the defendant, concluding that age played no role in the decisions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Jacqueline Randall's claims of medical malpractice and lack of informed consent regarding prenatal care at Walter Reed Army Hospital under the Federal Tort Claims Act, specifically the handling of her abnormal pap smear results indicating CIN-1, follow-up colposcopic exams showing possible HPV-related changes, and decisions not to perform a biopsy or fully communicate results while she was pregnant with her daughter Kimberly. After a bench trial, the court issued findings of fact detailing the exams, medical records, expert testimony on standard practices for pregnant patients, and the separation of OB and GYN clinics at the hospital. The core reasoning focused on whether the physicians' recommendations for postpartum follow-up, absence of biopsy due to pregnancy risks, and overall treatment aligned with accepted medical standards without evidence of negligence.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

In this case, the defendant moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate her sentence after pleading guilty to drug and firearm charges, alleging due process violations from a 16-day pre-indictment detention, denial of counsel during arrest, ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to credit substantial assistance, and (in a proposed amendment) innocence due to duress that also rendered her plea involuntary. The court denied the motion, the request to amend, and an extension of time to respond. It held that under Tollett v. Henderson, a valid guilty plea waives collateral attacks on pre-plea constitutional claims, limiting review to whether counsel's advice rendered the plea involuntary or unintelligent. Applying Hill v. Lockhart and Strickland v. Washington, the court found the defendant failed to show counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable or that any errors would have led her to insist on trial rather than pleading guilty.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned enforcement of a permanent injunction under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, which requires federal landholding agencies to identify and make excess, surplus, unutilized, or underutilized properties available for use by homeless assistance providers. Plaintiffs moved to modify the injunction to conform to 1990 statutory amendments regarding quarterly canvassing of properties, reporting deadlines, suitability determinations by HUD, and related procedures. The court adopted a compromise requiring comprehensive canvassing in the first and third quarters and supplemental canvassing in the others, shortened HUD's suitability review period to thirty days, and rejected or modified other proposed changes based on the plain language of the statute and prior interpretations of the injunction while accounting for agency operational concerns.

federal powerpropertyprocedure

In Ware v. Howard University, plaintiff Ivan Ware, a long-time university employee, sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act alleging that the university discriminated against him on the basis of age by failing to promote him to Director of Auxiliary Enterprises in 1983, demoting him in 1986, and failing to promote him again in 1987. The court found that the university violated the ADEA through these actions. It reasoned that the university bypassed its own posting and qualification requirements to appoint a younger, less-qualified candidate, made statements indicating intent to sideline Ware, and took steps to ensure the younger candidate's promotion, constituting a willful violation subject to the three-year statute of limitations. The court rejected the university's defenses that the decisions were based on non-age factors.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Douglas v. Baker, plaintiffs who are natives and residents of the Dominican Republic sought a judicial declaration of their U.S. citizenship based on their father's prior presence in the United States, along with an order compelling the government to issue them passports. The court previously granted the citizenship declaration but denied the request for mandamus relief regarding passports. On the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the court awarded fees after finding that the government's denial of the passport applications and its subsequent litigation position were not substantially justified, as the government had failed to adequately investigate supporting affidavits and had little evidence contradicting the citizenship claim. However, the court reduced the requested amount of over $36,000 because the fees sought exceeded reasonable prevailing market rates and lacked sufficient justification for enhancements. The motion was also deemed timely filed.

immigrationprocedure

This case concerned the legality of a 1979 Interagency Agreement between the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Defense Logistics Agency that set pricing for petroleum product deliveries to government sites under the section 8(a) minority business set-aside program. Plaintiffs, three small minority-owned trucking firms that had subcontracted with the SBA, alleged that the agreement's use of a Fair Market Price derived from competitive bids exceeded the SBA's statutory authority and failed to ensure reasonable profits. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the SBA violated its duty under the Small Business Act by relying on a rigid competitive-bidding formula rather than conducting an independent analysis of each section 8(a) firm's costs and profits. The decision rested on the conclusion that the agreement improperly prevented price adjustments even when competitive bids came from non-performing contractors.

business & regulatory

This case concerned a petition for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act arising from enforcement proceedings in litigation against federal agencies for noncompliance with Title V of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, which mandates making suitable surplus federal property available for use by the homeless. Plaintiffs had previously obtained a permanent injunction and partial enforcement orders requiring agencies such as HUD and HHS to improve canvassing, outreach, and application processes; these orders were affirmed on appeal. The court found plaintiffs to be prevailing parties on multiple issues and concluded that the government's positions were not substantially justified, awarding fees for work on enforcement motions, related conferences, a motion to compel regulations, and the appeal, while applying current statutory hourly rates to account for delay and reducing certain hours where the government had been substantially justified.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedureproperty

The case involved a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy who admitted his homosexuality shortly before graduation and resigned after being informed that Department of Defense directives barred homosexuals from serving or receiving a commission. He sued for his diploma, commission, and a ruling that the directives and related regulations violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the regulations were constitutional under precedents such as Ben-Shalom v. Marsh and Dronenburg v. Zech, and that substantial deference is due to military determinations on personnel fitness and discipline.

civil rightsfederal power

Gibraltar Savings, a federally insured savings association, sued the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Resolution Trust Corporation after the OTS Director appointed the RTC as receiver based on a finding that the institution was insolvent. The case centered on the proper standard for judicial review of the Director's appointment decision under 12 U.S.C. § 1464(d)(2)(E) and whether due process or estoppel barred the appointment. The court ruled that review is limited to the administrative record under the arbitrary-or-capricious standard of the Administrative Procedure Act, that this standard satisfies due process, and that the record adequately supported the Director's insolvency finding. It therefore granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case concerns enforcement of a 1988 permanent injunction under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, which requires federal agencies to identify unutilized or underutilized properties and make suitable ones available to organizations assisting the homeless. Plaintiffs moved for additional orders addressing ongoing compliance issues, including quarterly canvassing and reporting by HUD, timely suitability notifications, revisions to environmental review procedures by HHS, cessation of interference by GSA, and enhanced outreach and reporting by defendants. The court granted the motion in part, directing specific procedural changes and requiring defendants to issue implementing regulations by May 27, 1991, reasoning that such measures were necessary to remedy past violations and ensure future adherence to the Act's property transfer process.

federal powerpropertyenvironmentprocedure

In United States v. Clipper, the defendant moved to suppress narcotics seized from his person after police conducted a stop and frisk based on a dispatcher's report of an armed man matching his description. The court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that the officers had reasonable suspicion under the Terry doctrine to stop the defendant, draw their weapons, and begin a pat-down for safety reasons. When an officer felt a hard object during the frisk, the defendant fled, which the court found justified continued pursuit and apprehension; the resulting discovery of crack cocaine in his crotch area provided probable cause for arrest. The opinion emphasizes that the officers' actions were reasonable given the armed-suspect tip and the need to neutralize potential danger before completing the frisk.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a qui tam action under the False Claims Act brought by William Juliano against the Federal Asset Disposition Association (FADA) and various individuals associated with it, alleging that FADA was unlawfully created and funded, made false claims for expenses, and paid excessive salaries using government funds. The United States declined to intervene against some defendants and moved to dismiss the claims against FADA and seven of its directors. The court granted the motion to dismiss FADA and the directors, reasoning that FADA was a federally owned and controlled entity created by FSLIC, making any recovery against it equivalent to the government suing itself, which does not present a justiciable controversy under the Act.

criminal lawfederal power

In this case, labor unions representing Library of Congress employees challenged a regulation allowing the placement of staff on enforced leave or suspension in emergency situations without a prior hearing, claiming violations of procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment and the First Amendment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant Librarian, upholding the regulation. It reasoned that the regulation addresses emergencies and provides adequate post-deprivation hearings, satisfying due process, and that its restrictions on access to non-public forums are reasonable under the First Amendment.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfree speechprocedure

The case involved a challenge by plaintiff-intervenors to the General Services Administration's (GSA) decision to transfer a parcel of federal property known as Barracks K to the Department of the Navy rather than making it available for homeless assistance under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. The court had previously granted injunctive relief requiring federal agencies to comply with the Act's requirements for identifying and transferring suitable vacant properties. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, upholding the GSA's transfer decision as not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful, because the Navy's long-standing use and needs for the property were paramount based on the administrative record.

federal powerproperty

This case is a class action brought by blind vendors and their representatives against District of Columbia agencies, alleging mismanagement of the Randolph-Sheppard vending facility program on federal and local property. Plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus compelling compliance with the Randolph-Sheppard Act and over $800,000 in damages for breach of contract, primarily concerning collection and distribution of vending machine income and set-aside funds. After denying a motion to dismiss and holding a five-day bench trial with extensive exhibits including audits and compliance reviews, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law applying the Act's requirements for vendor priority, income allocation, and participation in program management. The court's reasoning centered on statutory provisions, legislative history, and evidence of how the agencies handled assigned and unassigned vending income as well as administrative levies.

labor & employmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns the validity of Standard Forms 312 and 4355, nondisclosure agreements that certain Executive Branch employees must sign regarding classified information, and whether their use complies with a 1989 appropriations statute (§ 618) restricting funding for forms that violate specific conditions. After the Supreme Court remanded the case to avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings on separation of powers, the district court interpreted the statute as prohibiting implementation of the forms only if they breach one of the enumerated subsections, such as by addressing unmarked or non-classified information, using the term 'classifiable,' or obstructing secure communications with Congress. The plaintiff, representing affected employees, did not allege that the current forms violate any of those subsections. The court therefore dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, without addressing the motion for a preliminary injunction or constitutional questions.

federal powerfree speechprocedure

This case involves an enforcement action by the Secretary of Labor under ERISA against Dart Drug Stores, Inc. and two former officers, alleging that the officers breached fiduciary duties to an employee profit-sharing plan by causing it to purchase $3.5 million in Dart securities, and seeking rescission and restoration of losses. After Dart filed for bankruptcy, it moved to stay the proceedings against it under the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code or the court's inherent authority. The court denied the motion, holding that the Secretary's action qualifies for the exception to the automatic stay because it enforces the agency's police or regulatory powers to protect public policy interests in employee benefit plans rather than solely pecuniary interests of the government. The court further found that Dart had not shown sufficient hardship to warrant a discretionary stay and that such a stay would prejudice the co-defendants.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory