Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Giardino v. Dist. of Columbia

August 28, 2007

GLENN GIARDINO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: John M. Facciola United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case has been referred to me by consent of the parties for all purposes, including trial.

I. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS

According to the amended complaint, the plaintiffs have sued the District of Columbia and the denominated defendants (Winston Robinson, Michael Anzallo, Jeffrey Parker, Mary Lanauze, and Thomas Boone) (the "individual defendants"), invoking Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; the "Human Rights Law of the District of Columbia," D.C. Code § 2-1402.21(a); the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 US.C. § 12101; the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621; and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985(3).*fn1 Amended Complaint at 3.

The individual defendants are "sued in their individual capacity." Id. But, the complaint also alleges that they "were acting within the scope of their employment and as agents for the defendant the District of Columbia" in that they were "acting under color of law as officers and members of the Metropolitan Police Department in engaging in illegal activities to deprive the plaintiffs of due process of law and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the constitution." Id.

The amended complaint therefore sets forth various claims for relief against the defendants as follows:

1. Claims against the District of Columbia itself based upon four federal employment statutes-Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act;

2. Claims against the individual defendants under these same four federal statutes;

3. Claims against the named defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985(3) (the "Civil Rights Act") based on their violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights;

4. Claims against the District of Columbia under the Civil Rights Act based on the acts of the individual defendants;

5. Claims against the District of Columbia under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (the "Human Rights Act"); and

6. Claims against the individual defendants under the Human Rights Act.

II. DEFENDANTS' MOTION

The District of Columbia and the individual defendants, who are all represented by the Office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia, have now filed Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [#31] ("Defs. Mot."). In it, they seek dismissal on two grounds: (1) plaintiffs never received a right to sue letter from the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.