In this case, plaintiff JoAnn Carpenter sued her employer, the Federal National Mortgage Association, alleging sex discrimination under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act after a male colleague with the same title received additional supervisory responsibilities and influence during a reorganization of the General Counsel's office. The defendant moved to dismiss the discrimination claim, arguing that it amounted to a failure-to-promote claim that could not succeed because no promotion to a higher title occurred and that the Act does not cover allocation of responsibilities among employees of equal rank. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that the complaint adequately alleged disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of employment on the basis of sex, which is prohibited by the Act, and that such claims are not limited to formal promotions or changes in pay or title.
The case involves a plaintiff's motion to reconsider the court's grant of partial summary judgment to the defendant on her Title VII sexual harassment claim. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff was improperly attempting to reargue previously decided facts and introduce a new legal theory not raised earlier, without any change in law or new evidence. The court reasoned that the alleged rape was not timely charged with the EEOC, the continuing violation doctrine did not apply due to lack of connection to timely incidents, and there was insufficient evidence of a hostile work environment or quid pro quo harassment based on sex within the limitations period.
In this case, a former document preparation specialist sued his employer law firm alleging employment discrimination under Title VII along with claims for national origin discrimination and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant moved to dismiss the Title VII claims as time-barred by the 90-day statute of limitations after the right-to-sue letter and to dismiss the national origin and emotional distress claims for failure to state a claim. The court denied dismissal on statute of limitations grounds, ruling that the plaintiff's latest complaint would be treated as a timely amended complaint in the prior action to avoid penalizing clerical errors by counsel and the clerk. The court granted dismissal of the national origin discrimination and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
The case involved a Dutch multiemployer pension fund for health care workers seeking a refund of approximately $8.5 million in U.S. income taxes withheld on dividends from U.S. investments for 1993, claiming exemption as a labor organization under I.R.C. § 501(c)(5). The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the government's, ruling that the Fund did not qualify for the tax exemption. The court reasoned that the statutory language and legislative history of § 501(c)(5) do not encompass pension funds like the plaintiff's, which is jointly controlled by employers and unions and primarily manages retirement benefits rather than engaging in traditional labor organization activities such as collective bargaining or representing employee interests in labor disputes.
In Harvey v. District of Columbia, an emergency medical technician sued the District of Columbia and its Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging sexual harassment based on incidents including a 1992 rape by a supervisor and various co-worker actions in 1994. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the D.C. EMS as a separate entity and her claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, while granting the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the hostile work environment sexual harassment claim. The decision rested on the plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies by filing an EEOC charge within the required 300-day period for earlier incidents and the absence of employer liability for unreported co-worker harassment, as supervisors neither knew nor should have known of the conduct, precluding application of the continuing violations doctrine. Additionally, the court addressed discovery disputes by denying the exclusion of certain witness testimony but allowing the defendants to depose the plaintiff's expert witness before trial.
In Cones v. Shalala, a federal employee sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination in multiple non-selections for promotions and other career opportunities between 1989 and 1993, as well as retaliation for filing an EEO complaint. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant. Claims based on events before December 15, 1992 were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to timely contact an EEO counselor as required by regulations. For the remaining claims, the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, could not show that the agency's legitimate reasons for its actions were pretextual, and could not demonstrate causation, including because the position at issue was filled by lateral transfer rather than merit promotion.