Case: Jackson v. Microsoft Corp.

1:00-cv-01457 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia

Filed Date: June 20, 2000

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 20, 2000, an African-American plaintiff filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e against Microsoft Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On January 3, 2001, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding six additional plaintiffs and seeking to represent a nationwide class of black African-American persons employed by Microsoft at any time from April 27, 1992 to the present. Specifically, the plain…

On June 20, 2000, an African-American plaintiff filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e against Microsoft Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On January 3, 2001, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding six additional plaintiffs and seeking to represent a nationwide class of black African-American persons employed by Microsoft at any time from April 27, 1992 to the present. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against its black employees through the terms and conditions of employment.

On October 26, 2000, the Court (Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson) granted in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims arising in 1995 and 1996 on limitations grounds.

On March 12, 2001, the Court granted Defendant's Motion for Judge Jackson's recusal as presiding judge in the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Jackson v. Microsoft Corp., 135 F.Supp.2d 38 (D.D.C. 2001). Although Jackson did not believe that his admittedly negative impressions of Microsoft stemming from a prior case met the statutory grounds for recusal as interpreted by case law, he nevertheless granted the motion because "extrajudicial comments attributed to [him], when viewed in light of the public disapproval thereof expressed by the court of appeals at oral argument of the Microsoft cases appeal, have created an appearance of personal bias or prejudice." Id. at 40.

On May 3, 2001, the Court (Judge John Garrett Penn) granted Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, holding that the transfer was appropriate for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. The Court ordered that the case be transferred to the Western District of Washington where it was assigned docket number 2:01-cv-00775.

 

Summary Authors

Jordan Rossen (9/28/2010)

People


Judge(s)

Jackson, Thomas Penfield (District of Columbia)

Penn, John Garrett (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Bucholtz, Roy J. (Virginia)

Hoffler, Tricia P. (Florida)

Attorney for Defendant

Dwyer, Ellen Moran (District of Columbia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:00-cv-01457

Docket

June 4, 2001

June 4, 2001

Docket
12

1:00-cv-01457

Order (Granting In Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, etc.)

Oct. 26, 2000

Oct. 26, 2000

Order/Opinion
37

1:00-cv-01457

Memorandum and Order (Granting Defendant’s Motion For Recusal)

March 12, 2001

March 12, 2001

Order/Opinion

135 F.Supp.2d 38

39

1:00-cv-01457

Memorandum (Granting Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue)

May 3, 2001

May 3, 2001

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated Dec. 19, 2024, 12:48 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 20, 2000

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Putative class of all black African-American persons employed by Microsoft in the U.S. at any time from April 27, 1992 to the present who are subject to Microsoft’s employment and human resource policies and practices

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Unknown

Defendants

Microsoft Corp., Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Unknown

Nature of Relief:

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Unknown

Issues

General/Misc.:

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination Area:

Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc.)

Discrimination Basis:

Race discrimination

Affected Race(s):

Black