Andrea Peterson v. Archstone, No. 10-7012 (D.C. Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, acting pro se, sued defendant for alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act when defendant declined to hire her. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed the complaint where plaintiff failed to appear from a single motions hearing when she believed that motions she had previously filed for a change of venue and for the magistrate judge's recusal remained pending and operated to suspend all proceedings. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint where the district court's dismissal was inconsistent with precedent when it had not previously found plaintiff disobedient or dilatory, did not attempt lesser sanctions, and failed to explain why the case-ending sanctions of dismissal was necessary.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.