This case involves a parent filing suit on behalf of her son, a student with disabilities in D.C. public schools, seeking review of an administrative hearing officer's decision under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The hearing officer had found three IDEA violations by the District but denied most requested relief, including extended school year services, and awarded only a portion of the compensatory education hours sought. The magistrate judge recommends granting in part and denying in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and remanding the matter to the hearing officer. The core reasoning is that the hearing officer did not adequately explain the denial of extended school year services or the specific calculation of compensatory education awarded, requiring further individualized analysis tied to the record.
In this case, a former DC Public Schools physical education teacher sued the District of Columbia, alleging that after she suffered a concussion and requested medical and FMLA leave, the District failed to accommodate her disability, disclosed confidential medical information, retaliated against her with a negative performance evaluation and job elimination, and committed the torts of negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District moved to dismiss the statutory claims for failure to state a claim and for partial summary judgment on the ADA and common-law claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the tort claims to the extent they sought unliquidated damages but allowing the ADA failure-to-accommodate and retaliation claims, the parallel Rehabilitation Act claims, the FMLA retaliation claim, and the tort claims seeking declaratory relief and lost benefits to proceed, on the ground that the pro se plaintiff's allegations, liberally construed, sufficiently stated viable causes of action.
In this case, Kimberly Earle sued the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that her termination was retaliatory and discriminatory on the basis of gender, religion, and age in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. The SEC moved to exclude portions of testimony from Earle's retained expert, Ira W. Kitmacher, under Rule 702 and Daubert. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, excluding opinions that amounted to legal conclusions about regulatory compliance, discrimination, or retaliation but allowing other testimony that did not improperly apply the law to the facts.
Kimberly Earle sued the Chairman of the SEC, alleging that her termination constituted retaliation for protected activity as well as gender and religious discrimination under Title VII and age discrimination under the ADEA. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended granting the SEC's motion and denying Earle's, concluding that she failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact showing the agency's non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual. The alleged reorganization plan to capture salaries was deemed unfair but not a violation of Title VII or the ADEA, while retaliation claims failed on timing grounds and because key decisionmakers lacked notice of her protected activity.
In this case, plaintiff Felecia B. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits, arguing that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate medical opinion evidence when determining she was not disabled. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the plaintiff's motion for reversal and granted the Commissioner's motion for affirmance of the ALJ's decision. The court held that the ALJ properly weighed conflicting record evidence, including medical opinions and objective findings, in assessing the plaintiff's residual functional capacity, and that the court may not reweigh that evidence on appeal.
This case is a False Claims Act qui tam action in which former Medtronic sales representatives allege that the company caused physicians to submit false Medicare claims for implantation of its InterStim sacral nerve stimulator device by having Medtronic representatives assess and document symptom improvement without using the required patient voiding diaries. The opinion resolves the relators' motion for curative measures and sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) for spoliation of electronically stored information. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that Medtronic was not required to take more than reasonable steps to preserve ESI during a complex data-migration process but that untimely imposition of litigation holds caused additional loss of relevant records for which some prejudice was shown. As a remedy, the parties may present evidence and argument to the factfinder concerning the loss attributable to the untimely holds, and the court directed the parties to address costs and fees.