On December 1, 2000, fifteen African-American employees employed by the Veterans Affairs Medical Center ("V AMC") located in Birmingham, Alabama filed a class action against defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § ...
read more >
On December 1, 2000, fifteen African-American employees employed by the Veterans Affairs Medical Center ("V AMC") located in Birmingham, Alabama filed a class action against defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, alleging that their employer, the VAMC, engaged in and followed racially discriminatory employment practices and policies. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that the VAMC, with regard to African-American employees, failed to promote them, failed to inform them of job openings, failed to adequately train them, retaliated against them, and subjected them to a hostile work environment.
On March 15, 2001, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Alabama. On July 27, 2001, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs did not file any formal individual and/or class administrative complaints of discrimination, and urged the Court to dismiss the case.
Upon looking at each individual Title VII claim, on October 20, 2001, the Court (Judge William Marsh Acker, Jr.) dismissed the class aspect, all § 1981 claims, and ten of the plaintiffs' Title VII claims.
On November 23, 2001, the plaintiffs amended the complaint in accordance with the October 20, 2001 Memorandum Opinion.
On October 21, 2002, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On January 3, 2003, the Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiffs tried to obtain an extension of time for discovery by perpetrating a fraud on the Court.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs appealed, but the Appellate Court affirmed the District Court's decision, dismissing the appeal as frivolous.
Kunyi Zhang - 06/15/2010
compress summary