Cornish v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that nothing in sections of the CPP “grants an employee the right to sue the District or the D.C. Courts for monetary damages based on alleged employment discrimination”
• finding that complaint plausibly alleged equal work when it claimed that plaintiff “performed job functions ‘that require or entail substantially the same skill, effort, and responsibility’ as at least three specifically-referenced men” (citation omitted)
• finding that the plaintiff adequately alleged facts “that she has performed job functions ‘that require or entail substantially the same skill, effort, and responsibility’ as . . . specifically-referenced [male comparators]” to survive at the motion to dismiss stage
• agreeing that “[t]he D.C. City 5 Pub. L. No. 91-358, Title I, 84 Stat. 473, codified at D.C. Code § 11-101 et seq. (2012 Repl.). 6 Pub. L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774, codified at D.C. Code § 1-201.01 et seq. (2016 Repl.
• rejecting notice through the District of Columbia courts or the EEOC
• appearing to rely on similarly generic assertions in denying motion to dismiss

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).