2 U.S.C. § 1317
Prohibition of intimidation or reprisal
It shall be unlawful for an employing office to intimidate, take reprisal against, or otherwise discriminate against, any covered employee because the covered employee has opposed any practice made unlawful by this chapter, or because the covered employee has initiated proceedings, made a charge, or testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in a hearing or other proceeding under this chapter.
The remedy available for a violation of subsection (a) shall be such legal or equitable remedy as may be appropriate to redress a violation of subsection (a).
This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 104–1,
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Moran v. United States Capitol Police Bd., 887 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2012).
Moran v. United States Capitol Police Bd., 887 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2012). “” 2 U.S.C. § 1317 (a). These are, respectively, the “opposition” and “participation” clauses.”
Schmidt v. United States Capitol Police Bd., 826 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2011). “” 2 U.S.C. § 1317 (a). As noted in § 1401, violations of § 1317 are subject to the same exhaustion of administrative remedies before a district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim.”
Fields, Beverly v. Off Eddie Johnson, 459 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “§§ 206 (a)(1), (d), 207, 212(c)), and two counts of retaliation in violation of 2 U.S.C. § 1317 (a). The Office of Representative Johnson moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.”
Floyd v. Off. of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, 968 F. Supp. 2d 308 (D.D.C. 2013). “2 U.S.C. § 1317 (a). Attending to the language of that provision, the Representative argues that to request an accommodation is not to oppose an unlawful practice, nor to make, a charge, nor to initiate nor to participate in any proceeding under the Congressional Accountability…”
Sunday Iyoha v. Architect of the Capitol, 927 F.3d 561 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “Compare 2 U.S.C. § 1317 ("It shall be unlawful for an employing office to intimidate, take reprisal against, or otherwise discriminate against" an employee who engages in protected activity.”
Hollabaugh v. Off. of the Architect of the Capitol, 847 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2012). “2 U.S.C. § 1317 (a). The CAA applies to, inter alia, any employee of the OAC.”
Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (2008). “§411 (a)(2) (White House), and *504 provided them with an express retaliation remedy, 2 U. S. C. § 1317 ; 3 U. S. C. § 417 (a).”
Clendenny v. Architect of the Capitol, 236 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2017). “2 U.S.C. § 1317 (a); see also Duncan v. Office of Compliance, 541 F.”
Floyd v. Lee, 85 F. Supp. 3d 482 (D.D.C. 2015). “Compl. 19-21. The ADA, as incorporated by the Congressional Accountability Act, makes it unlawful to retaliate against an individual for undertaking activity protected by that statute, 2 U.”
Gordon v. Off. of the Architect of the Capitol, 750 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.D.C. 2010). “§ 1311 (a)(1) and 2 U.S.C. § 1317 (a) of the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA”).”
Duncan v. Off. of Compliance, 541 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Duncan filed a complaint with the Office of Compliance under section 207(a) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. § 1317 (a), alleging retaliation.”
Brady v. United States Capitol Police, 200 F. Supp. 3d 208 (D.D.C. 2016). “HOWELL, Chief Judge The plaintiff, Officer Kristin Brady, brings this action against her employer, United States Capitol Police (“USCP” or “defendant”), pursuant to Section 207(a) of the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA”), 2 U.S.C. § 1317 (a), asserting a single claim for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.