On February 22, 2001, African-American secretaries employed or formerly by the Federal Reserve Board (Board) filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §2000e in the United States District Court, District of Columbia. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for compensatory, declaratory, ...
read more >
On February 22, 2001, African-American secretaries employed or formerly by the Federal Reserve Board (Board) filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §2000e in the United States District Court, District of Columbia. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for compensatory, declaratory, and injunctive relief, claiming that Defendant discriminated against them in employment on the basis of their race. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant operated a discriminatory system of promotions, advancements, salary increases, and management structure. Plaintiffs also claimed that Defendant obstructed their ability to access a fair and effective means of asserting their Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints and retaliated against them by failing to process their EEO complaints.
Four of the plaintiffs were plaintiffs in a previously filed lawsuit, Artis v. Greenspan, 96-cv-2105 ("Artis I"). However, the plaintiffs in that case did not cooperate with EEO counselors, and the Board dismissed Artis I plaintiffs' administrative complaint in June 1996 (158 F.3d at 1307 quotes the Board's final agency action). Artis I plaintiffs then filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (96-2105). The Court held that the plaintiffs in that case had not exhausted their administrative remedies, and the D.C. Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case (158 F.3d at 1301).
The nineteen plaintiffs who are parties to this lawsuit then filed an agency-wide class action discrimination complaint with the Board on March 3, 1997. Plaintiffs filed this law suit on February 22, 2001, and the Court consolidated Civil Actions 01-400 and 99-2073. The second amended complaint was filed on August 21, 2002.
On September 22, 2002, the Court (Judge Emmet G. Sullivan) denied without prejudice Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies. Artis v. Greenspan, 223 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D. D.C. 2002). The Court also denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that plaintiffs were not required to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination in its initial pleadings.
On April 28, 2005, the Court ordered the parties to provide to it a single, consolidated document detailing the remaining discovery deemed by each party to be necessary, and relevant objections, in order for the Court to make a determination about the foundation for subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court dismissed the case with prejudice on January 31, 2007, because it found that Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Artis v. Greenspan, 474 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D. D.C. 2007).
On March 2, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Artis v. Greenspan, 256 F.R.D. 4 (D. D.C. 2009).
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 7, 2009 (USCA Case Number 09−5121). There has been no further activity.Haley Waller - 06/20/2010