JAIYEOLA 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.

• holding that the statute of limitations for an RA claim should be one year, drawn from the DCHRA
• holding that the DCHRA is more analogous to the Rehabilitation Act than the District of Columbia’s personal injury laws and applying the DCHRA's one-year statute of limitations to a Rehabilitation Act claim
• holding that the DCHRA is more analogous to the Rehabilitation Act than the District of Columbia’s personal 8 injury laws and applying the DCHRA's one-year statute of limitations to a Rehabilitation Act claim
• stating that “notice-of-claim statutes such as § 12-309 are not borrowed and applied to federal causes of action”
• applying the Human Rights Act limitation period to discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act
• declining to affirm summary judgment on a separate ground unaddressed by the trial court, especially in light of “unresolved discovery questions” raised in appellant’s Rule 56(d) affidavit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).