University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Board EE-DC-0051
Docket / Court 1:01-cv-02221-EGS-JMF ( D.D.C. )
State/Territory District of Columbia
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection Private Employment Class Actions
Case Summary
On October 29, 2001, several African-American current or former U.S. Capitol Police Officers filed a lawsuit under the Congressional Accountability Act ("CAA"), 2 U.S.C. § 1311, against the United States Capitol Police Board in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. ... read more >
On October 29, 2001, several African-American current or former U.S. Capitol Police Officers filed a lawsuit under the Congressional Accountability Act ("CAA"), 2 U.S.C. § 1311, against the United States Capitol Police Board in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs also included claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. However, the District Court construed those statutes as incorporated by the CAA, reasoning that, prior to the CAA, those laws were not applicable to legislative branch employees. Blackmon-Malloy v. United States Capitol Police Board, 338 F.Supp.2d 97, 99 (D.C.C. 2004).

On September 30, 2004, the Court (Judge Emmet G. Sullivan) granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Blackmon-Malloy v. United States Capitol Police Board, 338 F.Supp.2d 97 (D.C.C. 2004). Defendant argued that the District Court only had subject matter jurisdiction over claims in which the plaintiff had alleged that he completed counseling and mediation regarding the alleged violation within the time limits specified by the CAA. The Court agreed, holding that the CAA specifically limits a Court's jurisdiction to cases in which the plaintiff had timely exhausted the administrative remedies. With respect to those plaintiffs' claims that did in fact conform to the timely counseling and mediation requests, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to reconsideration of those claims.

In light of its September 30, 2004 Opinion and Order, the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola for a report and recommendation regarding which claims in the case could proceed. Blackmon-Malloy v. United States Capitol Police Board, 2007 WL 6847408 (D.C.C. 2007). Magistrate Judge Facciola issued a Report and Recommendation on March 19, 2007, and a Supplemental Report and Recommendation on May 15, 2007. On August 15, 2007, the Court adopted the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Facciola, thereby dismissing with prejudice a substantial number of the remaining claims.

The Plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued its opinion on July 31, 2009. The case was heard before Judge David Bryan Sentelle, Judge Douglas Howard Ginsburg, and Judge Judith Ann Wilson Rogers. There were three aspects of the district court's ruling at issue: (1) whether the three-step process requiring counseling and mediation before an employee could file a complaint was jurisdictional, (2) whether in-person attendance by the employee was required at counseling or mediation, and (3) whether receipt of end of counseling and mediation notices demonstrated completion of counseling and mediation. Blackmon-Malloy v. United States Capitol Police Board, 575 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2009). The Court of Appeals (with the opinion written by Judge Rogers) affirmed the district court's ruling with respect to whether the three-step process was jurisdictional, holding that it was. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's in-person ruling, holding that the CAA did not require in-person attendance by the employee at counseling or mediation. Lastly, the Court of Appeals held that receipt from the Office of Compliance of written notice of the end of mediation did demonstrate the employee's completion of counseling and mediation. Thus, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court.

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Joint Forth Amended Class Action Complaint, realleging that Defendant had violated the CAA and that the action was properly maintainable as a class action under FRCP 23(a). On August 12, 2010, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint.

As of September 12, 2010, the Court had not yet ruled on Defendant's latest motion to dismiss. The case is ongoing.

Jordan Rossen - 09/23/2010


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Discipline
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Promotion
Training
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
General
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Black
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
42 U.S.C. § 1981
Defendant(s) United States Capitol Police Board
Plaintiff Description African-American Officers who experienced race discrimination and retaliation in their employment with the U.S. Capitol Police and also filed timely requests for counseling and received end of mediation notices in this case or in its companion cases
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Pending
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:01-cv-02221-EGS-JMF (D.D.C.) 09/03/2010
EE-DC-0051-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss or Strike Complaints 07/10/2002 (2002 WL 34359739)
EE-DC-0051-0001 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 08/30/2002 (2002 WL 34359740)
EE-DC-0051-0002 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Plaintiff Ikard's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Strike the Complaints 09/03/2002 (2002 WL 34359741)
EE-DC-0051-0003 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss or Strike Joint Second Amended Class Action Complaint 12/22/2003 (2003 WL 25670235)
EE-DC-0051-0004 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 02/05/2004 (2004 WL 5489523)
EE-DC-0051-0005 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Opinion and Order (granting Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice to reconsideration of those plaintiffs' claims that conform to the timely counseling and mediation requests as explained in the opinion) 09/30/2004 (338 F.Supp.2d 97) (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0051-0015 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Order (dismissing four plaintiffs without prejudice, etc.) 03/31/2006 (2006 WL 891163) (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0051-0006 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Supplemental Report and Recommendation 05/15/2007 (2007 WL 1438763)
EE-DC-0051-0007 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Order (dismissing with prejudice all claims in Appendix B and Appendix C, etc.) 08/15/2007 (2007 WL 6847408) (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0051-0008 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 03/26/2008 (2008 WL 6968322)
EE-DC-0051-0009 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Plaintiff [Individual]'s Opposition to Summary Judgment and Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 56(f) 06/18/2008 (2008 WL 2913277)
EE-DC-0051-0010 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 06/18/2008 (2008 WL 2913276)
EE-DC-0051-0011 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 06/19/2008 (2008 WL 2913278)
EE-DC-0051-0012 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Opinion (affirming in part, and reversing and remanding in part the district court ruling) 07/31/2009 (575 F.3d 699)
EE-DC-0051-0016 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Joint Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint 05/10/2010
EE-DC-0051-0013 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint 08/12/2010
EE-DC-0051-0014 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Facciola, John M. Court not on record
EE-DC-0051-0006 | EE-DC-0051-0007 | EE-DC-0051-9000
Ginsburg, Douglas Howard (D.C. Circuit)
EE-DC-0051-0016
Rogers, Judith Ann Wilson (D.C. Circuit)
EE-DC-0051-0016
Sentelle, David Bryan (D.C. Circuit, W.D.N.C.)
EE-DC-0051-0016
Sullivan, Emmet G. (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0051-0008 | EE-DC-0051-0015 | EE-DC-0051-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Butler, James Quincy (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0011 | EE-DC-0051-9000
Celestin, Jenny (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-9000
Day, Charles W. (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0002 | EE-DC-0051-0005 | EE-DC-0051-0010 | EE-DC-0051-0013 | EE-DC-0051-9000
Fitch, Elaine Lynette (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-9000
Garon, Lenore (Virginia)
EE-DC-0051-0013 | EE-DC-0051-9000
Gebhardt, Joseph (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0002 | EE-DC-0051-0005 | EE-DC-0051-9000
Gebhardt, Daniel K. (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0010 | EE-DC-0051-0013 | EE-DC-0051-9000
Johnson, Nathaniel D (Maryland)
EE-DC-0051-0003 | EE-DC-0051-0005 | EE-DC-0051-0012 | EE-DC-0051-0013 | EE-DC-0051-9000
Lee, Susan C. (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0002 | EE-DC-0051-9000
Rainey, Valencia (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0013 | EE-DC-0051-9000
Rucker, Donna Williams (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0013 | EE-DC-0051-9000
Thompson, Richard Lloyd II (Maryland)
EE-DC-0051-9000
Ware, Charles Jerome (Maryland)
EE-DC-0051-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Allen, William F. (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0004
Contreras, Rudolph (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0009 | EE-DC-0051-0014
Earnest, Robin M. (Maryland)
EE-DC-0051-9000
Herrera, Frederick M. (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0009
Howard, Roscoe (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0001 | EE-DC-0051-0004
Lambert, Audrey Elizabeth (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-9000
Machen, Ronald C (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0014
McBarnette, Andrea (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-9000
Nagle, Mark Earl (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0001 | EE-DC-0051-0004
Roback, Harry B. (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0009 | EE-DC-0051-0014 | EE-DC-0051-9000
Taylor, Jeff (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0009
Weinstein, Laurie J. (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-0001 | EE-DC-0051-0004 | EE-DC-0051-0014 | EE-DC-0051-9000
Other Lawyers Eveleth, Peter Ames (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-9000
Uelmen, John D. (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0051-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -