NUNNALLY v. LANIER et al

Filing 140

ORDER overruling in part and sustaining in part 130 the District of Columbia's Objections; overruling in part and sustaining in part 131 Nunnally's Objections; affirming in part and reversing in part 127 Magistrate Judge Robinson' ;s 12/19/13 Report & Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 98 the District of Columbia's motion for summary judgment; and granting in part and denying in part [102[ Nunnally's motion for sanctions. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on March 22, 2017. (MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
RONDA NUNNALLY,

Civil Action No. 08-1464 (PLF)

ORDER
For the reasons set forth in an Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby
ORDERED that the District of Columbia’s Objections [Dkt. 130] are
OVERRULED IN PART and SUSTAINED IN PART; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Nunnally’s Objections [Dkt. 131] are OVERRULED
IN PART and SUSTAINED IN PART; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Court AFFIRMS IN PART and REVERSES IN
PART Magistrate Judge Robinson’s December 19, 2013 Report and Recommendation [Dkt.
127]; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the District of Columbia’s motion for summary
judgment [Dkt. 98] is GRANTED with respect to Nunnally’s Title VII and DCHRA claims
based on her being required to report to the First District weekly while on sick leave in January
2007; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the District of Columbia’s motion for summary
judgment [Dkt. 98] is DENIED with respect to all of Nunnally’s other Title VII and DCHRA
claims; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the District of Columbia’s motion for summary
judgment [Dkt. 98] is GRANTED with respect to Nunnally’s DCWPA claim based on retaliation
in response to her protected disclosures about MPD’s “unethical activities” and “pervasive
retaliation” unrelated to her; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the District of Columbia’s motion for summary
judgment [Dkt. 98] is DENIED with respect to Nunnally’s DCWPA claim based on the three
instances of alleged retaliation occurring after May 7, 2008, in response to her protected
disclosures about MPD’s treatment of her individually; it is
FUTHER ORDERED that Nunnally’s motion for sanctions [Dkt. 102] is
DENIED with respect to the sanction of a default judgment; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Nunnally’s motion for sanctions [Dkt. 102] is
GRANTED with respect to the sanction of an adverse inference at trial.
SO ORDERED.

/s/
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: March 22, 2017

2