The case involves a habeas corpus petition filed by Omar Mohammed Khalifh, a Libyan national detained at Guantanamo Bay, challenging his detention by the U.S. government. The court denied the petition and granted the government's motion for judgment on the record. The decision was based on the government's evidence showing by a preponderance of the evidence that Khalifh was part of al-Qaida and associated forces, including his activities in Sudan working for Osama bin Laden's company, receiving training, and his continued associations in Afghanistan up to his capture in 2002, without evidence of dissociation.
The case involved Khadija Duma's remaining Title VII claim against her employer Fannie Mae for alleged workplace discrimination, following the earlier dismissal of most other claims and the voluntary withdrawal of an ERISA claim. The court granted Fannie Mae's motion to dismiss the Title VII claim. It did so because Duma had not filed a signed charge of discrimination with the EEOC within the required 300-day period after the last alleged discriminatory act, had not pursued corrections to an EEOC draft in a timely manner, and had not shown circumstances justifying equitable tolling of the deadline.
In Kapche v. Holder, plaintiff Jeffrey Kapche prevailed at trial on his Rehabilitation Act claim that the FBI discriminated against him by revoking a conditional job offer due to his diabetes, and the court addressed his request for equitable remedies including back pay, instatement, and front pay. The court denied all equitable relief after March 1, 2007, applying the McKennon after-acquired evidence doctrine because the FBI discovered and relied in good faith on plaintiff's prior misconduct involving unauthorized gasoline use and inconsistent explanations that demonstrated lack of candor, which would have independently disqualified him from employment. The court further found no back pay was owed for the earlier period because expert calculations, after correcting errors, showed that Kapche would have earned less in the FBI position than in his actual employment, resulting in no net economic damages. The defense was properly raised, the misconduct was unrelated to the discrimination, and McKennon principles extend to refusal-to-hire cases.
The case involved the estate and family of Mark Parsons, a U.S. national killed in a 2003 bombing near the Ben Hanoun junction in Gaza while escorting diplomats, who sued the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization under the Antiterrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333, alleging they provided material support for or conspired in the attack in violation of related federal criminal statutes such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A, 2332(b), and 2339B. The plaintiffs identified Amer Qarmout and the Popular Resistance Committee as possible perpetrators based on PA investigation files but offered no other admissible evidence tying them directly to the bombing. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, because the plaintiffs failed to prove the identity of the actual bomber or establish a sufficient connection between the defendants and the attack to support liability. The court also denied the plaintiffs' request for additional discovery, finding insufficient grounds to believe further efforts would yield necessary evidence.
Deborah Minor sued the USDA under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, alleging she was paid less than white male colleagues, faced race and sex discrimination through various workplace actions like delayed responses and exclusion from meetings, suffered retaliation for protected activity, and endured a hostile work environment. The court dismissed the Equal Pay Act claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claim exceeded $10,000 or was subject to venue restrictions under the Tucker Acts. It granted summary judgment on the Title VII claims because Minor did not exhaust her race and sex discrimination claims, failed to show an adverse employment action or pretext for the agency's legitimate explanations regarding retaliation, and the alleged incidents did not meet the severe or pervasive standard for a hostile work environment claim.
The case involved the estate and family of Mark Parsons, a U.S. security officer killed in a 2003 bombing in Gaza while escorting diplomats, suing the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) under the Antiterrorism Act for allegedly supporting the attack. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. It reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence identifying the specific perpetrators or establishing that the PA or PLO provided material support to them or conspired in the bombing, as required under the relevant criminal statutes incorporated by the ATA; claims against the PLO lacked any supporting evidence, and requests for additional discovery did not meet the necessary standards.
