Barber v. District of Columbia Government

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedDecember 31, 2025
DocketCivil Action No. 2017-0620
StatusPublished

This text of Barber v. District of Columbia Government (Barber v. District of Columbia Government) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barber v. District of Columbia Government, (D.D.C. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CLAUDIA A. BARBER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 17-cv-620 (JMC)

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT, EUGENE ADAMS,

Defendants.

ORDER

For the reasons that the Court will provide on the record at an upcoming hearing, it is

hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF 62, is GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part as follows:

For Count I, Discrimination in violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act

(DCHRA) against Defendants District of Columbia and Eugene Adams, the motion is DENIED

with respect to Plaintiff’s claims regarding her failure to be appointed to PALJ and acting PALJ

positions before February 2016 and GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

For Count II, Retaliation in violation of the DCHRA against the District and Adams, the

motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s claims regarding her failure to be appointed to PALJ

and acting PALJ positions before February 2016 and GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s

remaining claims.

For Count III, Discrimination in violation of Title VII against the District, the motion is

DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s claims regarding her failure to be appointed to PALJ and

acting PALJ positions before February 2016 and GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s remaining

claims.

1 For Count IV, Retaliation in violation of Title VII against the District, the motion is

DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s claims regarding her failure to be appointed to PALJ and

acting PALJ positions before February 2016 and GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s remaining

For Count V, Retaliation in violation of the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act against the

District and Adams, the motion is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that the Parties shall appear for a status hearing for the Court to

provide its reasoning on the record and set a date for trial, on January 27, at 2:30 PM. The

conference will be on the record before Judge Jia M. Cobb and conducted via Zoom. The Court’s

Deputy Clerk will provide the information necessary to access the conference.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge

Date: December 31, 2025

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Barber v. District of Columbia Government, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-district-of-columbia-government-dcd-2025.