Legal Opinion
Timus v. District of Columbia Department of Human Rights
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 8, 1993No. 90-AA-465PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.*
The District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C.Code §§ 1-2501 to -2557 (1992) (the Act), “provides alternative avenues of redress — administrative or judicial” — for claims of unlawful discrimination. Brown v. Capitol Hill Club, 425 A.2d 1309, 1313 (D.C.1981). An obvious purpose of the administrative avenue is to afford persons claiming discrimination a less formal and expensive means of obtaining relief than through court proceedings.1 A key component of the administrative process is conciliation or settlement of a complaint under the auspices of the agency administering the Act,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Land v. DollarSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Stoll v. GottliebSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Good Samaritan Hospital v. ShalalaSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Griffin v. Acacia Life InsuranceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- United States Parole Commission v. NobleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- Estenos v. PAHO/WHO Federal Credit UnionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- Carter v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- Adams v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.