Legal Opinion
Rogers v. Washington Fairmont Hotel
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided August 22, 2005No. Civ. 05-0143 RJLPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LEON, District Judge.
Before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and insufficient service of process. Steve Rogers, the pro se plaintiff, alleges that the defendants, the Washington Fairmont Hotel (the “Hotel”) and Carolyn Clark, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by “tolerating” sexual harassment in his workplace. Upon consideration of the defendants’ motion, the plaintiffs opposition, and the entire record herein, the Court GRANTS the defendants’ motion to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- GTE New Media Services Inc. v. BellSouth Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2000
- Kent B. Crane v. New York Zoological SocietyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1990
- Harris v. Howard University, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1998
3Cited by5 opinions
- Banks v. LappinDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Walton v. Federal Bureau of PrisonsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Scinto v. Federal Bureau of PrisonsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- Griffin v. Snow Christensen and MartineauUtah Supreme Court · 2025
- Scinto v. Federal Bureau of PrisonsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009