This case involved post-verdict motions by five defendants convicted after a lengthy trial on charges stemming from the R Street Organization drug trafficking conspiracy in Washington, D.C., including violations of RICO, drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848, money laundering, and related offenses. The defendants sought dismissal, new trials, or judgments of acquittal primarily on grounds of alleged juror misconduct, such as exposure to extraneous newspaper articles, site visits to the crime area, and improper discussions or influences during the trial. The court examined affidavits from jurors and alternates, along with trial records and hearing testimony, and denied the motions, finding the claims of contamination unsupported by credible evidence, lacking proof of prejudice to the verdicts, and often based on unreliable or inconsistent statements. The reasoning emphasized that isolated instances of potential exposure did not taint the unanimous convictions on the core drug-related counts, and procedural safeguards during trial had adequately addressed any issues.
This case concerns a challenge by building trades unions to a Department of Labor Wage Appeals Board decision finding that union "job targeting programs," which use union dues to subsidize contractors on targeted projects, violate regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 3 implementing the Davis-Bacon Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary of Labor, upholding the Board's ruling that such programs are not permissible uses of "membership dues" under the regulations. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), claiming errors of fact regarding whether the programs necessarily involved federal projects and errors of law in the court's reliance on the Supreme Court's Beck decision. The court corrected minor factual statements in its prior opinion to remove references to government projects but held the corrections immaterial to the outcome, rejected any misapplication of Beck, and denied the motion, confirming that the Secretary's narrow interpretation of the regulation was reasonable.
The case involved unions and contractor associations challenging a Department of Labor Wage Appeals Board decision that job targeting programs (JTPs), which subsidize wages on public construction projects using deductions from union members' pay, violate the Davis-Bacon Act and related regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 3. The district court denied a motion to intervene, granted a motion to strike, and entered summary judgment for the Secretary of Labor. The court found the material facts undisputed and held that the JTP subsidies constitute unauthorized payroll deductions not covered by regulatory exceptions, including those for regular union dues as limited by relevant precedent. The core reasoning centered on the Davis-Bacon requirement that laborers receive prevailing wages without subsequent deductions or rebates, supported by the statute's purpose of protecting local wage standards.
This case concerns a trespass claim brought by KayFirst Corporation against WMATA (and related claims against Chicago Title Insurance) over a subterranean step footing of a retaining wall, built between 1905 and 1907, that extends approximately seven feet into KayFirst's Parcel 4 from WMATA's adjacent Parcel 14. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on WMATA's liability for trespass under Count I and Chicago Title's liability for breach of a title insurance contract under Count III. Finding no material facts in dispute, the court analyzed the property deeds, the history of the parcels, and legal doctrines including easements and adverse possession, concluding that the footing is an encroachment not protected by any easement and denying WMATA's motion for summary judgment while addressing the scope of the insurance claim.
This employment discrimination case involves claims by a black registered nurse against the Peace Corps for racial discrimination in training, performance evaluations, and denial of a contract extension, as well as retaliation for complaining about discrimination, spanning events from 1987 to 1990. The defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment and to strike demands for compensatory damages and a jury trial. The court analyzed the timeliness of claims under a continuing violation theory, the elements of a prima facie case despite the position ultimately going to another black applicant, and the retroactive application of 1991 Civil Rights Act provisions. It identified genuine issues of material fact on the plaintiff's awareness of deadlines and the discriminatory intent behind narrative comments in evaluations, deferring full resolution pending further facts.
This case is an employment discrimination lawsuit in which plaintiff Marie R. Jackson alleged that defendant American Chemical Society violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII by rejecting her application for an administrative assistant position in favor of a non-minority candidate, along with a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court denied summary judgment on the Title VII claim after finding that Jackson had established a prima facie case and raised triable issues of fact on whether the employer's proffered reasons were pretextual, based on evidence of prior assurances of promotion and circumstantial indications of discrimination. The court granted summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, holding that it was subsumed by the Title VII allegations because the complained-of conduct and injury arose entirely from the asserted acts of discrimination. The ruling permits the discrimination claims to proceed while dismissing the tort count.