University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Jackson v. Microsoft Corp. EE-DC-0055
Docket / Court 1:00-cv-01457-JGP ( D.D.C. )
State/Territory District of Columbia
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Case Summary
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


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Discrimination-area
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
General
Pattern or Practice
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Black
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) Microsoft Corp.
Plaintiff Description Putative class of all black African-American persons employed by Microsoft in the U.S. at any time from April 27, 1992 to the present who are subject to Microsoft’s employment and human resource policies and practices
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Unknown
Prevailing Party Unknown
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Unknown
Source of Relief Unknown
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Microsoft Gender Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
Date: Oct 14, 2016
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Age Discrimination Class Action seeks Fair Employment for Older PwC Applicants
http://www.pwcagecase.com/
Date: Apr 27, 2016
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Smith Barney Gender Discrimination
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/employment/smith-barney/
Date: August 2008
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Date: Mar 1, 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)
1:00-cv-01457-JGP (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0055-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/04/2001
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Order (Granting In Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, etc.) [ECF# 12] (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0055-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/26/2000
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order (Granting Defendant’s Motion For Recusal) (135 F.Supp.2d 38) (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0055-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/12/2001
Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum (Granting Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue) [ECF# 39] (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0055-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/03/2001
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Jackson, Thomas Penfield Court not on record
EE-DC-0055-0001 | EE-DC-0055-0003
Penn, John Garrett Court not on record
EE-DC-0055-0002 | EE-DC-0055-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bucholtz, Roy J. (Virginia)
EE-DC-0055-9000
Hoffler, Tricia P. (Florida)
EE-DC-0055-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Dwyer, Ellen Moran (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0055-9000
Ruttinger, George D. (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0055-9000
Sauer, Richard H. (Washington)
EE-DC-0055-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -