On November 25, 1977, Carolee Brady Hartman filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 against the United States International Communication Agency (the "Agency"), formerly known as the United States Information Agency, in the United States District Court, District of Columbia. Hartman, represented by both private and public counsel, asked the court for injunctive relief and damages, claiming that the Agency's hiring, promotion, and salary practices constituted patterns or practices of discrimination based on sex.
On January 27, 1978, the Court (Judge Charles R. Richey) granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff De Medina. De Medina v. Reinhardt, 444 F. Supp. 573 (D. D.C. 1978).
A class was conditionally certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) on April 19, 1978. The Court later ordered consolidation of separate cases C.A. No. 77-0360 and C.A. No. 78-0762, was consolidated.
The parties agreed that the trial was to be bifurcated into a liability stage and a relief stage.
On October 24, 1979, the Court found that Plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and thus had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence an agency-wide pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of sex. De Medina v. Reinhardt, 1979 WL 39 (D. D.C. October 24, 1979). The Court dismissed the class claim against Defendant.
Plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision. On August 27, 1983, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia (Judge Patricia M. Wald), remanded the case to the District Court for further consideration on the issues of the class retaliation claim and the use of statistical data to support Plaintiffs' claims. De Medina v. Reinhardt, 686 F.2d 997 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Docket Nos. 81-1909-81-1911).
On remand, the Court held that Defendant failed to rebut Plaintiff's prima facie case of discrimination in hiring but that Defendant did not retaliate against Plaintiffs. Hartman v. Wick, 600 F. Supp. 361 (D. D.C. 1984).
The Court then held a trial to determine appropriate remedies between January 12, 1987, and January 14, 1987.
On January 19, 1988, the Court issued an opinion and order setting forth a concrete plan for remedying the United States Information Agency's ten-year policy of discriminating against women who applied for jobs in six broad categories of employment. Hartman v. Wick, 678 F. Supp 312 (D. D.C. 1988).
The Court denied Defendant's motion to reconsider its order from January 19, 1988, on April 15, 1988. Hartman v. Wick, 1988 WL 39856 (D. D.C. April 15, 1988).
On August 26, 1991, the Court issued Class notice to female applicants to entry level foreign service information officer/entry level foreign service officer positions with the United States Information Agency from January 1, 1978 to November 16, 1984. Hartman v. Gelb, 1991 WL 202367 (D. D.C. Aug. 26, 1991).
On June 8, 1992, the Special Master (Stephen A. Saltzburg) issued his Report and recommendations regarding Foreign Service officers. Hartman v. Gelb, 1992 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 22186 (D. D.C. June 8, 1992). Among other things, he recommended that 52 slots be set aside for Hartman class members.
On July 9, 1992, the Court (Judge Charles R. Richey) adopted the Special Masters Report and Recommendation in part. Hartman v. Gelb, 1992 WL 754646 (D. D.C. July 9, 1992). However, the Court found that Defendant was required to set aside 39 slots for Hartman class members.
The Agency appealed the District Court's decision. On April 5, 1994, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Judge Patricia M. Wald) held that the record did not contain sufficient positive findings of commonality and typicality to permit affirming the original class certification and remanded the case to the district court. Hartman v. Duffey, 19 F.3d 1459 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
On remand, on November 23, 1994, the Court allowed additional class representatives to intervene, held that original class certification was proper, and held that current post-judgment class certification was proper. Hartman v. Duffey, 158 F.R.D. 525 (D. D.C. 1994).
Defendants appealed the District Court's decision once again. On July 17, 1996, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Judge Stephen F. Williams) affirmed the District Court except with regards to Plaintiff Hartman and the 39 foreign service slots. Hartman v. Duffey, 88 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
On June 24, 1997, the District Court (Judge James Robertson) adopted the reports of the Special Master concerning liability rulings with respect to several individual plaintiffs. Hartman v. Duffey, 973 F. Supp. 189 (D. D.C. 1997).
On August 4, 1997, the Court held that Plaintiffs were not entitled to award of prejudgment interest on fees and expenses. Hartman v. Duffy, 973 F. Supp 199 (D. D.C. 1997).
On May 20, 1998, the Court issued an order governing Plaintiffs' remedies. Hartman v. Duffey, 8 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. D.C. 1998).
The Court approved the parties' consent decree on July 12, 2000.
On August 14, 2000, the Court entered judgment for Plaintiffs in the amount of Five Hundred Eight Million Dollars ($508,000,000.00).
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed an order from the District Court denying late claims from would-be plaintiffs. Hartman v. Powell, No. 00-5356, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 7560, *1 (D. D.C. Mar. 15, 2001).Haley Waller - 06/29/2010