District of Columbia Housing Authority and the District of Columbia v. District of Columbia Office of Human Rights and George Brummell, Sr.

881 A.2d 600 (D.C. 2005) · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · August 25, 2005 · No. Nos. 02-CV-524, 02-CV-525

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed a Superior Court judgment upholding an administrative determination that the District of Columbia Housing Authority discriminated against George Brummell based on age and national origin. The court held that the Superior Court had jurisdiction and that the Housing Authority waived arguments concerning mandatory EEO counseling and an evidentiary hearing by failing to raise them earlier. The court affirmed the judgment upholding the administrative finding of discrimination and the remedies awarded.

Holdings

  1. The Superior Court had jurisdiction to entertain DCHA's petition for review because DCHA was an aggrieved party and no clear legislative intent precluded judicial review.
  2. DCHA's petition for review was timely because it was filed within three years of DHR's final decision, the limitations period applicable when no other filing period is specified.
  3. DCHA forfeited its challenge to DHR's failure to dismiss the complaint for lack of prior EEO counseling because DCHA did not raise the issue before DHR or the Superior Court.
  4. DCHA forfeited its claim that DHR was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing because it accepted summary determination before the agency, did not request a hearing, and did not seek reopening on that ground.
  5. Substantial evidence supported DHR's finding that DPAH's stated reasons for not selecting Brummell were pretextual and that DPAH discriminated against him based on age and national origin.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to review DHR's final determination at DCHA's petition.
  2. Whether DCHA's petition for review was timely under the applicable limitations period.
  3. Whether DCHA waived its claim that DHR should have dismissed Brummell's complaint because he failed to consult an EEO counselor before filing.
  4. Whether DCHA waived its claim that DHR was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing rather than issue a summary determination.
  5. Whether substantial evidence supported DHR's finding that DPAH discriminated against Brummell based on age and national origin.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (23)

  • D.C. Housing Authority v. D.C. Dep't of Human Rights, 733 A.2d 338 (D.C. 1999)(followed)
  • Martin v. District of Columbia Courts, 753 A.2d 987 (D.C. 2000)(followed)
  • Simpson v. District of Columbia Office of Human Rights, 597 A.2d 392 (D.C. 1991)(followed)
  • District of Columbia Water & Sewer Auth. v. Delon Hampton & Assocs., 851 A.2d 410 (D.C. 2004)(followed)
  • District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 572 A.2d 394 (D.C. 1989)(followed)
  • Fair Care Found. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Ins. & Sec. Regulation, 716 A.2d 987 (D.C. 1998)(followed)
  • Goodman v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm'n, 573 A.2d 1293 (D.C. 1990)(followed)
  • Jones & Artis Constr. Co. v. District of Columbia Contract Appeals Bd., 549 A.2d 315 (D.C. 1988)(followed)
  • United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33 (1952)(followed)
  • District of Columbia Gen. Hosp. v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals, 548 A.2d 70 (D.C. 1988)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from District Of Columbia District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals