On June 20, 2000, an African-American plaintiff filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e against Microsoft Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On January 3, 2001, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, ...
read more >
On June 20, 2000, an African-American plaintiff filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e against Microsoft Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On January 3, 2001, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding six additional plaintiffs and seeking to represent a nationwide class of black African-American persons employed by Microsoft at any time from April 27, 1992 to the present. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against its black employees through the terms and conditions of employment.
On October 26, 2000, the Court (Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson) granted in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims arising in 1995 and 1996 on limitations grounds.
On March 12, 2001, the Court granted Defendant's Motion for Judge Jackson's recusal as presiding judge in the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Jackson v. Microsoft Corp., 135 F.Supp.2d 38 (D.D.C. 2001). Although Jackson did not believe that his admittedly negative impressions of Microsoft stemming from a prior case met the statutory grounds for recusal as interpreted by case law, he nevertheless granted the motion because "extrajudicial comments attributed to [him], when viewed in light of the public disapproval thereof expressed by the court of appeals at oral argument of the Microsoft cases appeal, have created an appearance of personal bias or prejudice." Id. at 40.
On May 3, 2001, the Court (Judge John Garrett Penn) granted Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, holding that the transfer was appropriate for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. The Court ordered that the case be transferred to the Western District of Washington (see Clearinghouse case file no. EE-WA-0127).Jordan Rossen - 09/28/2010