 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin, LLC Martin v. Howard University, 2010 Status |
2010 STATUS OF CASE/MOTIONS PENDING AT TRIAL COURT LEVEL
The current status of motions in Martin v. Howard University, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
19516 (D.C. 1999) is discussed below. See overview of case at MartinvHowardU.
Currently pending before the Court is Ms. Martin's February 2, 2009 Rule 60(B) Motion for
Relief from Judgment, requesting a new trial, based on the Supreme Court's ruling in
Crawford v. Nashville, which was decided while Martin v. Howard was in the appellate
process. The Supreme Court's decision in Crawford clarified that it is the court's
responsibility to determine whether an employee engaged in "protected activity" under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when she complained to her employer of workplace
conduct that constitutes "sexual harassment."
Ms. Martin filed this motion more than a year ago, but the Court has not addressed it -- even
though it is unopposed. Howard has never filed an Opposition to this motion, asked the Court
for an extension of time to respond to the motion, or filed any document arguing that Ms.
Martin has incorrectly construed Crawford or its relevance to her case.
In her pending Rule 60(B) motion, Ms. Martin argued that the trial court erroneously
submitted this question to a jury and also failed to provide the jury with proper legal
instruction on the definition of sexual harassment -- even after the jury sent the judge a note
asking for more instruction on the definition of sexual harassment under Title VII. Once this
error is corrected and the improper jury question stricken, Ms. Martin would prevail on her
sexual harassment/hostile work environment claim, based on the jury's answers to the
remaining questions, which were: 1) the harassment that Prof. Martin endured in her
workplace was severe and pervasive, creating a hostile work environment for her; and 2)
Howard failed to take reasonable steps to end the hostile work environment. Once it is
established that Prof. Martin engaged in "protected activity" when she complained of the
stalker on campus, the remaining questions regarding her retaliatory non-renewal should
proceed to a new trial before a jury.
There are 2 other issues pending before the trial court: 1) The Court has held in abeyance --
since 2001 -- the mandatory Rule 37 sanctions -- of more than $364,000 -- that Ms. Martin is
entitled to, from Howard University, for its violation of discovery rules that delayed this
litigation by at least 3 years; and 2) Howard's request that Ms. Martin pay to it nearly $10,000
as reimbursement for its litigation costs. (Out of pocket costs, for deposition transcripts,
photocopying and similar expenses are distinguished from attorneys' fees. Attorneys' fees are
only awarded to Defendants when the Plaintiff has filed a frivolous lawsuit and the Court
intends to punish him/her for filing it). See Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate the Clerk's Order
Taxing Howard's Costs against Plaintiff (Motion to Retax Costs) and Plaintiff's Reply to
Howard's Opposition. Howard has never opposed the Rule 37 sanctions or claimed that Ms.
Martin is not entitled to it, based on hours spent on legal work to obtain the discovery, nor
has it ever challenged her entitlement to the hourly rate she has claimed. The court placed
this issue in abeyance, in a May 2001 decision, without explanation. Ms. Martin has
repeatedly asked the Court to take this issue out of abeyance and award her the compensation
for Howard's discovery violations that the Court's Rule 37 requires be paid. The Court has
not responded to any of her repeated requests in the past 10 years.
The current status of motions in Martin v. Howard University, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
19516 (D.C. 1999) is discussed below. See overview of case at MartinvHowardU.
Currently pending before the Court is Ms. Martin's February 2, 2009 Rule 60(B) Motion for
Relief from Judgment, requesting a new trial, based on the Supreme Court's ruling in
Crawford v. Nashville, which was decided while Martin v. Howard was in the appellate
process. The Supreme Court's decision in Crawford clarified that it is the court's
responsibility to determine whether an employee engaged in "protected activity" under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when she complained to her employer of workplace
conduct that constitutes "sexual harassment."
Ms. Martin filed this motion more than a year ago, but the Court has not addressed it -- even
though it is unopposed. Howard has never filed an Opposition to this motion, asked the Court
for an extension of time to respond to the motion, or filed any document arguing that Ms.
Martin has incorrectly construed Crawford or its relevance to her case.
In her pending Rule 60(B) motion, Ms. Martin argued that the trial court erroneously
submitted this question to a jury and also failed to provide the jury with proper legal
instruction on the definition of sexual harassment -- even after the jury sent the judge a note
asking for more instruction on the definition of sexual harassment under Title VII. Once this
error is corrected and the improper jury question stricken, Ms. Martin would prevail on her
sexual harassment/hostile work environment claim, based on the jury's answers to the
remaining questions, which were: 1) the harassment that Prof. Martin endured in her
workplace was severe and pervasive, creating a hostile work environment for her; and 2)
Howard failed to take reasonable steps to end the hostile work environment. Once it is
established that Prof. Martin engaged in "protected activity" when she complained of the
stalker on campus, the remaining questions regarding her retaliatory non-renewal should
proceed to a new trial before a jury.
There are 2 other issues pending before the trial court: 1) The Court has held in abeyance --
since 2001 -- the mandatory Rule 37 sanctions -- of more than $364,000 -- that Ms. Martin is
entitled to, from Howard University, for its violation of discovery rules that delayed this
litigation by at least 3 years; and 2) Howard's request that Ms. Martin pay to it nearly $10,000
as reimbursement for its litigation costs. (Out of pocket costs, for deposition transcripts,
photocopying and similar expenses are distinguished from attorneys' fees. Attorneys' fees are
only awarded to Defendants when the Plaintiff has filed a frivolous lawsuit and the Court
intends to punish him/her for filing it). See Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate the Clerk's Order
Taxing Howard's Costs against Plaintiff (Motion to Retax Costs) and Plaintiff's Reply to
Howard's Opposition. Howard has never opposed the Rule 37 sanctions or claimed that Ms.
Martin is not entitled to it, based on hours spent on legal work to obtain the discovery, nor
has it ever challenged her entitlement to the hourly rate she has claimed. The court placed
this issue in abeyance, in a May 2001 decision, without explanation. Ms. Martin has
repeatedly asked the Court to take this issue out of abeyance and award her the compensation
for Howard's discovery violations that the Court's Rule 37 requires be paid. The Court has
not responded to any of her repeated requests in the past 10 years.
