United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 19-7098 September Term, 2020
1:14-cv-02032-RBW
Filed On: May 5, 2021
Mary E. Chambers,
Appellant
v.
District of Columbia,
Appellee
BEFORE: Srinivasan, Chief Judge; Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Millett,
Pillard, Wilkins, Katsas, Rao, and Walker, Circuit Judges
ORDER
The panel in this case having suggested that the case be reheard en banc, see
Chambers v. District of Columbia, 988 F.3d 497, 503 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (concurring
opinion), a vote was taken and a majority of the judges eligible to participate voted to
rehear the case en banc. In light of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that this case will be reheard by the court sitting en banc. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment filed February 19, 2021, be vacated. It
is
FURTHER ORDERED that this case be scheduled for oral argument before the
en banc court on Tuesday, October 26, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. It is
FURTHER ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that
Zachary C. Schauf
Jenner & Block
1099 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001-4412
a member of the Bar of this court, be appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court. It
is
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 19-7098 September Term, 2020
FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to filing briefs electronically, the parties file
30 paper copies of each brief and the appendix, in accordance with the following
schedule:
Brief for Appellant June 30, 2021
Appendix June 30, 2021
Brief for Amicus in support of July 7, 2021
Appellant, if any
Brief for Appellee August 6, 2021
Brief for Amicus in support of August 13, 2021
Appellee, if any
Brief for Appointed Amicus August 27, 2021
Reply Brief for Appellant September 17, 2021
The parties are directed to limit briefing to the question of whether the court
should retain the rule that the denial or forced acceptance of a job transfer is actionable
under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), only if there is “objectively tangible harm,”
Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 457 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Appointed amicus curiae is directed to defend the proposition that the court
should retain the rule that the denial or forced acceptance of a job transfer is actionable
under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), only if there is “objectively tangible harm,”
Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d at 457.
To enhance the clarity of their briefs, the parties are urged to limit the use of
abbreviations, including acronyms. While acronyms may be used for entities and
statutes with widely recognized initials, briefs should not contain acronyms that are not
widely known. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 41
(2017); Notice Regarding Use of Acronyms (D.C. Cir. Jan. 26, 2010).
Because the briefing schedule is keyed to the date of oral argument, the court will
grant requests for extension of time limits only for extraordinarily compelling reasons.
The briefs and appendix must contain the date the case is scheduled for oral argument
at the top of the cover. See D.C. Cir. Rule 28(a)(8).
Page 2
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 19-7098 September Term, 2020
A separate order will issue allocating oral argument time.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Michael C. McGrail
Deputy Clerk
Page 3