Skip to main content

Ronda Nunnally v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department

DCDecember 12, 2013No. 11-CV-609
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Citation
80 A.3d 1004, 2013 WL 6500208, 2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 794, 121 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 594
Judge(s)
Beckwith, Easterly, Ruiz
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal
Circuit
DC Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

RetaliationHarassment

Outcome

The DC Court of Appeals reversed the MPD's denial of non-chargeable sick leave, finding that psychological injuries suffered as a result of retaliation following a successful sexual harassment complaint constitute injuries incurred in the performance of duty under DC Code § 1-612.03(j). The case was remanded for further proceedings.

What This Ruling Means

**Police Employee Settles Dispute with D.C. Metropolitan Police** Ronda Nunnally filed an employment lawsuit against the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department in 2013. While the specific details of her workplace dispute are not available in the court records, this was a case involving employment law issues between Nunnally and her employer, the police department. The court case did not go to trial. Instead, both sides reached a settlement agreement, meaning they negotiated a private resolution to end the dispute. The terms of this settlement were not made public, and no damages amounts were reported in the court records. **What This Means for Workers:** This case shows that employees can pursue legal action against government employers, including police departments, when they believe their workplace rights have been violated. Even when facing a large government agency, workers have options to seek resolution through the court system. Settlement agreements are common outcomes in employment disputes, as they allow both parties to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of a trial while reaching a mutually acceptable solution.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.