Plaintiffs are minority employees of the Library of Congress (LOC) who brought suit on December 20, 2004, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of minority job applicants and all past, current, and future employees of the LOC in the United Steates district Court of the District ...
read more >
Plaintiffs are minority employees of the Library of Congress (LOC) who brought suit on December 20, 2004, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of minority job applicants and all past, current, and future employees of the LOC in the United Steates district Court of the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel alleged that Defendant, the Librarian of Congress, engaged in an ongoing pattern and practice of discrimination against minority employees in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Plaintiffs allege discrimination in various areas, including compensation, promotions, wage classifications, job assignments, and recruitment. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant maintained a hostile work environment for minority employees and retaliated against minority employees who brought these discriminatory practices to the attention of management.
On May 16, 2006, the court (Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr.) denied Defendant's motion to dismiss. Mills v. Billington, 2006 WL 1371683 *1 (May 16, 2006, D. D.C.).
On July 28, 2008, the court (Magistrate Judge Alan Kay) issued an order imposing sanctions on Plaintiffs for disobeying a discovery order.
On April 27, 2009, the court issued an order allowing Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification out of time. Plaintiffs were required to file their motion on or before June 22, 2009, and the court allowed them to conduct discovery related to class certification.
On January 5, 2010, Magistrate Judge Kay issued an order denying Plaintiffs' motion to direct defendant to preserve data and documents. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice because it found that Plaintiffs had failed to comply with a local "meet and confer" rule.
Magistrate Judge Kay issued a Report and Recommendation on February 17, 2010 recommending that the court deny Plaintiffs' motion for an injunction to require Defendant to compile and publish annual Equal Employment Opportunity plans and related reports as required by Title VII. Magistrate Judge Kay did not consider the merits of Plaintiffs' motion and instead found that Defendant had not waived its immunity to suit and that Plaintiffs did not have standing to enforce the provisions of the statute because they had not shown they had suffered an "injury in fact." The court recommended that the motion be denied without prejudice with leave for Plaintiffs to file a motion to amend their complaint in order to address the issue of standing.
As of the date of this writing, Defendants had moved to dismiss, but the Court had not decided the motion. The case is ongoing.Haley Waller - 06/19/2010