Case Results

Notable Appellate Decisions

In KBS v. Bowie State University, No. 17-1345 (4th Cir. Dec. 27, 2017), the Fourth Circuit partially revived a professor’s retaliation suit against Bowie State University. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the court affirmed dismissal of her Title VII, Maryland FEPA, and constructive-discharge claims, but vacated and remanded her Title IX retaliation claim—holding that her department chair’s recommendation against tenure and reduction of her professional opportunities could amount to a “materially adverse action” even though she was ultimately granted tenure.

In Coleman v. Duke, 867 F.3d 204, 209 (D.C. Cir. 2017), Nathaniel D. Johnson briefed and argued a successful appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on behalf of an African-American Department of Homeland Security employee alleging unlawful retaliation. Reversing the district court’s dismissal, the Court held in a published opinion that the employee had properly exhausted his EEO retaliation claim by raising it in his formal complaint—rejecting the government’s argument that an agency acceptance letter could quietly narrow a complaint’s scope without the notice the regulations require—and remanded his claims for further proceedings.

In Lightfoot v. Soul World No. 2449, Sept. Term 2015 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 31, 2017), Nathaniel D. Johnson briefed and argued a successful appeal before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, overturning a discovery-sanctions judgment that the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County had entered. In an unreported opinion, the appellate court held that the trial court had abused its discretion because its sanction rested on a misreading of the Maryland discovery rules—which require neither that interrogatory answers be signed on the last page nor that responses to document requests be signed at all—and because the court had imposed sanctions in a “factual vacuum,” without identifying any discovery violation or making the findings the law requires. The court reversed the sanctions order and vacated the resulting judgment.

In Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Board, 575 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2009), Nathaniel D. Johnson served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs—a class of more than 250 African-American U.S. Capitol Police officers alleging systemic race discrimination under the Congressional Accountability Act. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit partially revived the officers’ claims: while affirming that the Act’s counseling-and-mediation process is a jurisdictional prerequisite that equitable doctrines such as vicarious exhaustion cannot excuse, the Court reversed the dismissal in part, holding that neither the Act nor the Office of Compliance’s rules require an employee’s in-person attendance at counseling or mediation, and that the Office’s written notice of the end of mediation both triggered the statutory period for electing judicial or administrative relief and demonstrated that the employee had completed the required counseling and mediation.

Representative Matters

The Employment Law Firm, LLC was retained to ensure compliance with the class-action settlement in Cook v. Billington, the long-running employment-discrimination litigation brought against the Library of Congress on behalf of a class of approximately 2,000 African-American employees of the Library under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.