Artis v. District of Columbia

6 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Coronavirus and Statutes of Limitations in New York: A Lingering Effect?

    Rivkin Radler LLPMichael MulèApril 15, 2020

    It purports to act as a “toll” which, the Supreme Court has held “means to hold it in abeyance, i.e., to stop the clock.” Artis v District of Columbia, 138 S. Ct 594, 598 (2018). If Executive Order 202.8 is upheld and interpreted so as to “stop the clock” as to time limitations, it may have general applicability to causes of action, notices, motions, or other processes or proceedings.

  2. Sixth Circuit Changes Landscape of Discovery in Aid of International Commercial Arbitration

    McDermott Will & EmeryLisa RichmanDecember 19, 2019

    (SeeIn re Application to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 19-5315, 2019 WL 4509287 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2019)). The Sixth Circuit determined that “neither the phrase ‘foreign or international tribunal’ nor the word ‘tribunal’ is defined in the statute” and decided to look at the ordinary meaning of these words. (SeeIn re Application to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 19-5315, 2019 WL 4509287 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2019), citing to Artis v. District of Columbia, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 594, 603, 199 L.Ed.2d 473 (2018)).The court first examined the use of the word tribunal through the definitions in different dictionaries.

  3. Hawaii Employment Law Cases Jan. 21, 2018 to April 21, 2018 – Jeffrey S. Harris

    Torkildson, Katz, Moore, Hetherington & Harris, A.L.C.April 24, 2018

    Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134 (April 2, 2018). (Note: narrower Hawaii exemption may be limited to auto salesmen selling autos.)When state statute of limitations stops running in federal court. Statute of limitations on state claim stops running while claim is in federal court and for 30 days after federal case dismissed. Artis v. District of Columbia, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 762 (Jan. 22, 2018).Dodd-Frank Act only protects whistleblowing to SEC. Anti-retaliation provision of Dodd-Frank Act only prohibits retaliation against employees who report suspected securities law violations to SEC, not employees who report suspected securities law violations to senior company management.

  4. Supreme Court Holds That the Tolling Statute Applicable to State Law Claims Subject to Federal Supplemental Jurisdiction Stops the Statute of Limitations Rather Than According Plaintiffs a Grace Period

    White and Williams LLPRahul GogineniApril 13, 2018

    One major issue that has arisen when such jurisdiction is asserted is whether or not the applicable state-specific statute of limitations is tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) upon the filing of the federal action. Recently, the Supreme Court addressed this very issue in Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594 (2018). In Artis, after being fired by the District of Columbia, Stephanie C. Artis (Ms. Artis) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging four claims (one federal-based claim and three district-based claims): (1) employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) retaliation in violation of the District of Columbia Whistleblower Act; (3) termination in violation of the District of Columbia False Claims Act; and (4) wrongful termination against public policy.

  5. California Employment Law Notes - March 2018

    Proskauer Rose LLPAnthony OncidiMarch 24, 2018

    The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the litigation privilege does not bar an action brought under the IFPA, which is a more specific statute than the litigation privilege, and application of the litigation privilege to claims brought under the IFPA "would in large measure nullify the Act." The Court further held that the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity rule did not apply to Alzayat's claims under the IFPA because such claims are not based on the qui tam relator's own injuries.Statute Of Limitations For State Law Claims Was Suspended While Case Was Pending In Federal CourtArtis v. District of Columbia, 583 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018) Stephanie Artis filed a Title VII employment discrimination case against her employer, the District of Columbia, which was eventually dismissed on summary judgment by the district court; the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims that were included in the complaint. Artis then refiled her state law claims in state court 59 days after dismissal of her federal lawsuit.

  6. California Employment Law Notes

    Proskauer Rose LLPMarch 1, 2018

    The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the litigation privilege does not bar an action brought under the IFPA, which is a more specific statute than the litigation privilege, and application of the litigation privilege to claims brought under the IFPA "would in large measure nullify the Act." The Court further held that the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity rule did not apply to Alzayat's claims under the IFPA because such claims are not based on the qui tam relator's own injuries.Statute Of Limitations For State Law Claims Was Suspended While Case Was Pending In Federal CourtArtis v. District of Columbia, 583 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018)Stephanie Artis filed a Title VII employment discrimination case against her employer, the District of Columbia, which was eventually dismissed on summary judgment by the district court; the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims that were included in the complaint. Artis then refiled her state law claims in state court 59 days after dismissal of her federal lawsuit.