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.

Mary Ann Satterthwaite, Plaintiff v. District of Columbia

March 30, 2012

MARY ANN SATTERTHWAITE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert L. Wilkins United States District Judge

SUMMARY OPINION AND ORDER; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM OPINION*fn1

This matter is before the Court on Defendant District of Columbia's ("District") Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 21). Plaintiff Mary Ann Satterthwaite ("Plaintiff") asserts three counts against the District:

* Count I: Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 based on race

* Count II: Discrimination under Title VII based on race and gender; and

* Count III: Discrimination under D.C. Human Rights Act based on race and gender.

Plaintiff seeks $2.3 million in compensatory damages against the District, lost income and back pay, and attorneys' fees and costs.

For the following reasons, the District's Motion is GRANTED. For purposes of this ruling, the Court will assume that the reader is familiar with the factual assertions and arguments made by the parties, and will not recite those again here.

ANALYSIS

A.Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Moore v. Hartman, 571 F.3d 62, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c) and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986)). A genuine issue of material fact exists if the evidence "is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A party, however, must provide more than "a scintilla of evidence" in support of its position; the quantum of evidence must be such that a jury could reasonably find for the moving party. Id. at 252.

B.The District's Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute Is Deemed Admitted.

In considering whether the District is entitled to summary judgment, the Court will deem the District's statement of material facts not in dispute as admitted. Plaintiff has failed to controvert the District's facts and has repeatedly failed to submit an opposing statement of facts that complies with the local rules.

On December 17, 2010, the District filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 21). In compliance with the local and federal rules, the District submitted a Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute, listing 33 short and concise facts, each supported by specific references to record evidence.*fn2 (Dkt. No. 21 at 19-22). After asking for and receiving an ...


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.