Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=11480&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:46:00+00:00

Document:
On July 22, 1997, a group of female custodial workers filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (Equal Pay Act), and 2 U.S.C. § 1301 (Congressional Accountability Act) against their employer, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol in the United States District Court, District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from a private firm, the American Nurses Association, and the American Federation of Government Employees, asked the court for declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief, claiming that they had been deprived of promotions and equal pay. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that "custodial workers" at the Office of the Architect of the Capitol were overwhelmingly female and paid less than "laborers," most of whom were male.
On July 16, 1998, the Court (Judge Emmet G. Sullivan) dismissed Plaintiffs' Title VII and EPA claims but held that they could file an amended complaint and assert claims under the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA). Harris v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, 16 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D. D.C. 1998).
On November 3, 2000, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to join additional parties to the lawsuit.
"All women custodial workers employed by the Architect of the Capitol on or after January 23, 1996, the effective date of the Congressional Accountability Act, including those who terminated their employment or retired after that date and who were hired after that date, with respect to the cause of action alleged herein as violative of § 201(a) and (b) of the Congressional Accountability Act, 2 U.S.C. § 1311 (a), (b), which incorporate the rights and remedies of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 and other sections cited therein, and make them applicable to the defendant and the legislative branch generally."
On July 20, 2001, the court granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of their proposed Settlement Agreement and set a fairness hearing for September 28, 2001.
The Court approved the parties' settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice on October 18, 2001. The settlement agreement provided the following relief: promotions, wage increases, retroactive promotions, and increased retirement contributions.

References: § 2000
 § 206
 § 1301
 v. 
 § 201
 § 1311
 § 2000