University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Artis v. Greenspan EE-DC-0063
Docket / Court 1:01-cv-00400-EGS ( D.D.C. )
State/Territory District of Columbia
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection Private Employment Class Actions
Case Summary
On February 22, 2001, African-American secretaries currently or formerly employed by the Federal Reserve Board filed this race employment discrimination lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiffs, represented by ... read more >
On February 22, 2001, African-American secretaries currently or formerly employed by the Federal Reserve Board filed this race employment discrimination lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought compensatory, declaratory, and injunctive relief, claiming that the Board had operated a racially discriminatory system of promotions, advancements, salary increases, and management structure. The plaintiffs also claimed that the Board 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"). 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). 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 were parties to this lawsuit then filed an agency-wide class action discrimination complaint with the Board on March 3, 1997. The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on February 22, 2001, and the court consolidated this action and 99-2073. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan was assigned to this case. The second amended complaint was filed on August 21, 2002.

On September 22, 2002, Judge Sullivan denied without prejudice the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies. 223 F. Supp. 2d 149. The court also denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

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 the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. 474 F. Supp. 2d. On March 2, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 7, 2009 (USCA Case Number 09−5121). On June 7, 2011, the district court ordered the parties to provide a joint status report including a recommendation for further proceedings. On September 8, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the some of the claims of the plaintiff’s second amended complaint and to strike the corresponding sub-class allegation. On September 22, 2011, in addition to filing an opposition memorandum regarding defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiffs sought to leave to file a third amended complaint. The plaintiffs’ request to file a third amended complaint was denied once on November 9, 2011, and then again on August 16, 2012, due to the proposed third amended complaint failing to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

On August 24, 2012, the plaintiffs filed the fourth amended class complaint. Following a lengthy discovery, Judge Sullivan issued an opinion on September 29, 2014, denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and the plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the record after finding that the plaintiffs have not identified a single common issue. The court also expressed annoyance over the fact that “plaintiffs have repeatedly wasted this court’s and the defendants’ time and resources by filing timely but incomplete versions of pleadings and then filing one or more untimely ‘corrected versions,” and warned that further failures to comply with court Orders may result in the case being dismissed with prejudice. As such, when the plaintiffs filed a motion to leave to amend a complaint yet again, the court denied the motion on January 26, 2015, and reminded plaintiffs that future failure may result in this case being dismissed with prejudice.

On June 22, 2015, the court issued a memorandum opinion granting tje defendants’ motion to strike the class allegations raised in the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint and for an order directing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint stating more specifically the individual claims of discrimination. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a jury trial. Shortly after, the plaintiffs filed for a reconsideration of the court’s class-discovery rulings. On July 22, 2015, the court noted the plaintiffs’ “oft-repeated” challenges to the court’s years-old discovery rulings and rejected such challenge. The court also concluded that the case must be dismissed with prejudice, noting that while such dismissals are rare, the circumstances of this case warrant the decision since the plaintiffs and their counsel repeatedly failed to comply with court orders and engaged in other troublesome behavior, including the outright refusal to amend their complaint to state an appropriate claim. The case was dismissed with prejudice on July 22, 2015.

On September 19, 2015, the plaintiffs appealed this dismissal with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The plaintiffs also appealed all preceding final and interlocutory orders of the district court since the beginning of this case and appealed the withholding of evidence clearly probative of the correctly alleged facts in the case. On December 21, 2015, the D.C. Circuit entered an order denying the appeal and summarily affirming the district court’s order.

There have been no further activity since. The case is presumably closed.

Haley Waller - 06/20/2010
MJ Koo - 03/13/2017
Jake Parker - 06/28/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Discrimination-area
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Pay / Benefits
Promotion
Seniority
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
General
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Black
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Plaintiff Description African-American secretaries sued the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System alleging race discrimination and retaliation.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Filing Year 2001
Case Closing Year 2015
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
1:01-cv-00400-EGS (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0063-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/10/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
1:99-cv-02073-EGS (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0063-9001.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/01/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
[Opinion] (158 F.3d 1301)
EE-DC-0063-0012.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/20/1998
Source: Google Scholar
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Denying motion to dismiss without prejudice) (223 F.Supp.2d 149) (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0063-0011.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 09/25/2002
Source: Google Scholar
ORDER (Governing scope of discovery) [ECF# 36] (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0063-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/28/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PARTIES’ JOINT RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER OF APRIL 28TH, 2005 [ECF# 38]
EE-DC-0063-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/01/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
DEFENDANT'S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO SATISFY ADMINISTRATIVE COUNSELING REQUIREMENTS [ECF# 65]
EE-DC-0063-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/08/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO COURT ORDERED DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF# 42-1]
EE-DC-0063-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/11/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
DEFENDANT’S REPLY REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO SATISFY ADMINISTRATIVE COUNSELING REQUIREMENTS [ECF# 61-1]
EE-DC-0063-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/24/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER (Dismissing with prejudice) [ECF# 66] (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0063-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/31/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
MEMORANDUM OPINION (Granting Defendant's motion to dismiss) [ECF# 67] (474 F.Supp.2d 16) (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0063-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/31/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF - WHETHER INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF TIMELY EXHAUSTED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES [ECF# 78]
EE-DC-0063-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/12/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON THE ISSUE OF EXHAUSTION [ECF# 80]
EE-DC-0063-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/26/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Denying 59(e) motion) [ECF# 89] (256 F.R.D. 4) (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0063-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/02/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Sullivan, Emmet G. (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0063-0005 | EE-DC-0063-0006 | EE-DC-0063-0007 | EE-DC-0063-0008 | EE-DC-0063-0011 | EE-DC-0063-9000 | EE-DC-0063-9001
Wald, Patricia McGowan (D.C. Circuit)
EE-DC-0063-0012
Plaintiff's Lawyers Charlton, Walter T (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0063-0002 | EE-DC-0063-0004 | EE-DC-0063-0009 | EE-DC-0063-9000 | EE-DC-0063-9001
Defendant's Lawyers Chadwick, Joshua P. (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0063-9001
Hartman, Gerald S. (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0063-9001
Kuray, John L. (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0063-0001 | EE-DC-0063-0003 | EE-DC-0063-0004 | EE-DC-0063-0010 | EE-DC-0063-9000 | EE-DC-0063-9001
Willner, Kenneth M (District of Columbia)
EE-DC-0063-0001 | EE-DC-0063-0003 | EE-DC-0063-0004 | EE-DC-0063-0010 | EE-DC-0063-9000 | EE-DC-0063-9001

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -