Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)

Citation: Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Parent Document: Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2005-10-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1472683/douglas-v-kriegsfeld-corp/ ↗

Full Text

745 chars

I wrote about this controversy in some detail in my dissenting opinion when the *1145 case was before the division, see Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 849 A.2d 951, 971-99 (D.C.2004) (Douglas I), and for the most part, I continue to adhere to the views there expressed.[1] The case is in a somewhat different posture now, for a remand, as ordered by the en banc court is, in my view, more reasonable than the ruling of the division that Ms. Douglas' counsel should have been permitted, without further inquiry, to present a Fair Housing Act defense.[2] For the reasons set forth herein, and for those described in my dissent in Douglas I, however, I continue to believe that the trial court's decision should be affirmed. Specifically, in light of

Other Sections in This Document (533)

Full Text