Whether the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the grounds that non-pecuniary damages were not permitted for breach of an Office of Human Rights mediated settlement agreement

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b) and the D.C. Human Rights Act, § 2-1402.61 protect individuals who engage in protected activity from retaliation. This case concerns retaliation claims by Petitioners against Respondent, the former educational institution where the minor Petitioner matriculated, for various actions and inactions taken before, during and after the Petitioners engaged in protected activity. The questions presented for review by this Court are: 1. Whether the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the grounds that non-pecuniary damages were not permitted for breach of an Office of Human Rights mediated settlement agreement? 2. Whether the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in assessing the claims of retaliation by misapplying the material adversity legal standard applicable to claims of discrimination, rather than claims of retaliation established by this Court in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006)? 3. Whether the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in determining whether there were genuine issues of material fact? 4. Whether the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in its application of the “academic deference rule?”