District of Columbia· 6/1/2017

Sierra v. Hayden

Citations

254 F. Supp. 3d 230

How courts have described this case

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

dismissing claims on exhaustion grounds while noting result would likely be same under summary-judgment standard, where plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) filing did not identify any potentially relevant discovery
noting limits of what courts can rely on without converting to summary judgment motion
discussing discriminatory and retaliatory refusal to promote as well as “other discriminatory actions”
dismissing plaintiff’s Title VII claim because of failure to exhaust administrative remedies
“A document need not be mentioned by name to be considered ‘referred to’ or ‘incorporated by reference’ into the complaint.” (cleaned up)
“[T]he Court need not convert Defendant’s motion [to dismiss] into one for summary judgment, because it may take judicial notice of the only administrative documents needed to rule on th[e] motion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Judge Rudolph Contreras

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

54 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.