"

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND INFORMATION QUARTERLY
LITIGATION STATISTICS
October 1, 1991

LOC

NUM

HC

FTC

BIV

1

0

0

0

OTH

- December 31, 1991

ANS

PEN

CLD

lilT

0

3

0

0

SET

AWD

MXR

NER

SER

NCR

SCR

WXR

CO

TOT

*Title VII

1*

0

0

NARRATIVE
~otts

(update)

v. Bureau of Pri s ons, c ivil Action No. 8 8-2824

On october 7 , 1991, the Judge d enied plaintiff's motion to alter
or amend the order entered on September 18, 1991. On October 25,
1991, a ttorney Janet Rose Cooper filed her appearance on behalf of
plaintiff.
porothy D. Miller v. Di c k Thornburgh, Ci v il Action No. 90- 30050 / RV
Defendant filed a motion f or relief from the Judge's order granting
defendant's motion to dismiss on August 5, 1991. The Judge granted
plaintiff's motion for rel i ef, vacated his order of dismissal, and
reacti v ated the case on September 1 2, 1991.
On October 8 , 1991,
defendant filed an answer to the complaint and served plaintiff
with defendant's first request for the production of documents and
defendant's first set of interrogatories. On october 13, 1991, the
Judge e ntered a scheduling order directing that discovery be
completed no later than February 17, 1992.
On October 13, 1991,
defendant served plaintiff with a notice of deposition. Defendant
deposed plaintiff on December 2, 1991.
On December 5 , 1991,
plaintiff filed a motion for extension of the discovery process,
and a motion for extension until January 2, 1992 to respond to
defendant's first set of i nterrogatories a nd defendant ' s first
request for the production of documents.
On December 13, 1991,
plaintiff served defendant with plaintiff's first request for the
producti on of documents and plaintiff's first and second set of
interrogatories. Plaintiff s erved defendant with plaintiff's third
set of interrogatories , and with plaintiff's responses to
defendant's first set of i nterrogatories and defendant's first
request for the production of documents on December 16, 1991. On
December 18, 1991, the Judge entered an order extending the
discovery process through April 17, 1992, and granting plaintiff's
motion for extension until January 2,
1992 to respond to
defendant's first set of interrogatories and defendant's first
request for the production of documents.
Helen L. Archie v. Pick Thornburgh. Dale Thomas. stanley Wexler.
John Flynn. Steve Reayes. Sandra Hurst. and penise Montague, Civil
Action No. 91-1585

~

.,. .

On June 27, 1991, through her attorney, Erroll D. Brown, plaintiff,
Helen L. Archie, filed this 51-paragraph civil action, alleging
that s he was discriminated against because of her race (black),
while she worked as a secretary in the corporate Marketing Division
at the Federal Prison Industries, Inc., Washington, DC (UNICOR-DC),
in that she was denied promotional opportunities and assignments
Which similarly situated white employees were given, and that an

2

Administrative Officer position was advertised originally at the
GS-9/11/12 level, and was then changed to the GS-11/12 level to
prevent her from qualifying. Plaintiff alleges that after she was
transferred to the Central Office, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Washington,
DC,
as a Staffing specialist,
she was again
discriminated against because of her race (black) and in
retaliation for filing an EEO complaint in that she was assigned
a greater work load than others in her position and that conditions
were placed on her promotion to GS-9, staffing Specialist.
The
complaint also purports to set forth claims under District of
Columbia law for assault, battery, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
and defamation. As a remedy, plaintiff seeks a "transfer out of
the department in which she works into a comparable position in
another department with the Department of Justice," other
unspecified "equitable relief as the court deems just and proper,"
plus costs and attorney/s fees. Plaintiff served the united States
with a copy of the summons and complaint on November 4, 1991.
Assistant u.s. Attorney CAUSA) Jeffrey T. Sprung was assigned to
the case on December 6, 1991.
On December 26, 1991, Associate
General Counsel, George E. Pruden, II, provided the AUSA with a
Ii tigation report and with copies of relevant documents.
On
December, 27, 1991, the Defendant was granted an enlargement of
time until February 6, 1992.

'V

..i