No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Court denied the government's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Equal Pay Act claim, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether her male comparators performed substantially equal work. However, the court granted dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
REPORTED OPINION granting in part partial dismissal as to plaintiff's retaliation claim (Count II) and denying in part [32] Motion for Summary Judgment as to plaintiff's EPA claim (Count I). Pursuant to RCFC 54(b), as there is not just reason for delay, the clerk's office is directed to ENTER judgment DISMISSING Count II of plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice. On or before 12/4/2020, the parties are directed to CONFER and FILE a Joint Status Report. The status report shall state whether settlement is a feasible option in this case or whether the parties intend to file any additional dispositive motions. If dispositive motions are to be filed, the status report shall set forth a proposed schedule in that regard. If neither settlement nor dispositive motions are viable, the parties shall set forth a proposed schedule for the exchanges required by Appendix A, paragraph 13 and the filings required by paragraphs 14 through 17. Signed by Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith. (TQ) Service on parties made.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.