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 minority job applicants and all past, current, and future employees of the LOC in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, the Librarian of Congress, engaged in 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 the 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 the defendant's motion to dismiss. 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 the plaintiffs for disobeying a discovery order.
On April 27, 2009, the court issued an order allowing the plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification out of time. The 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 the plaintiffs' motion to direct defendant to preserve data and documents. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion without prejudice because it found that the 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 the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction to require the 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 the plaintiffs' motion and instead found that the defendant had not waived its immunity to suit and that the 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 the plaintiffs to file a motion to amend their complaint in order to address the issue of standing.
On April 9, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or alternatively motion for summary judgment. On February 28, 2011, the court denied the the plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunction. On March 12, 2013, the court denied without prejudice and with leave to renew the defendant's motion to dismiss or in the alternative motion for summary judgment as to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and res judicata.
The plaintiff filed a motion to bifurcate issues of liability and issues of individual relief on April 2, 2014 and filed a motion to certify class on April 25, 2014.
On May 20, 2014, the defendant filed motion to dismiss, or alternatively motion for summary judgment.
On March 30, 2016, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and denied as moot plaintiffs' motion to bifurcate issues of liability and issues of individual relief. The court further granted the defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(b) because the plaintiffs did not file a memorandum of law in opposition to this motion and, therefore, the court deemed the defendant's motion conceded. The court entered judgment in favor of the defendant and closed the case.Haley Waller - 06/19/2010
Susie Choi - 03/10/2017