Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia partially grants and partially denies defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Claudia A. Barber’s claims against the District of Columbia Government and Eugene Adams. The court allows certain DCHRA and Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims concerning failure to appoint Barber to PALJ and acting PALJ positions before February 2016 to proceed, while granting summary judgment on the remaining claims and on the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act claim. The court schedules a status hearing for January 27 at 2:30 p.m. to provide its reasoning and set a trial date.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.
- Whether the District was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII.
- Whether Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's retaliation claim under the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act.
Holdings
- Defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied as to Plaintiff's DCHRA discrimination and retaliation claims concerning her failure to be appointed to PALJ and acting PALJ positions before February 2016, and granted as to the remaining DCHRA claims.
- The District's motion for summary judgment was denied as to Plaintiff's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims concerning her failure to be appointed to PALJ and acting PALJ positions before February 2016, and granted as to the remaining Title VII claims.
- Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted on Plaintiff's retaliation claim under the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act.
Key quotations
“For the reasons that the Court will provide on the record at an upcoming hearing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF 62, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:” (at 1)
Factual background
Plaintiff Claudia A. Barber asserted discrimination and retaliation claims arising from failures to appoint her to PALJ and acting PALJ positions, including appointments before February 2016. She also asserted a retaliation claim under the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act. The order does not provide additional factual findings or analysis.
Procedural history
The District of Columbia and Eugene Adams moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, preserving specified claims concerning Plaintiff's failure to be appointed to PALJ and acting PALJ positions before February 2016. The court scheduled a status hearing to provide its reasoning on the record and set a trial date.