Baumann v. District of Columbia
775 F. Supp. 2d 191
D.D.C.2011Background
- Baumann, MPD officer and Chair of FOP, sues DC and MPD officials asserting retaliation for protected activity under First Amendment, DCWPA, and DC Police Investigations Act.
- Barricade incident circa May 30, 2009 leads Baumann to investigate conduct; he releases portions of radio recordings to press.
- Chief Lanier orders Internal Affairs investigation led by Lt. Welch into unauthorized release of recordings.
- Baumann allegedly must reveal that he ordered the FOP Safety Committee investigation and provided audio to press; faces threats of termination and temporary removal from duty; MPD monitors his speech.
- Second Amended Complaint adds four MPD officials and Lanier individually; alleges initiation and participation in retaliatory investigation with knowledge of protected disclosures.
- Court previously granted in part/denied in part motion to dismiss; current rulings concern DCWPA claims against individuals and §1983 claims against individuals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCWPA permits individual liability for pre-amendment conduct | Baumann argues DCWPA applies to individuals. | Defendants contend pre-amendment DCWPA did not allow individual liability. | DCWPA claims against individuals dismissed |
| Whether amendments retroactively authorize individual liability | Amendments should apply retroactively or clarify pre-existing rights. | Amendments not retroactive; not clarifying for pre-existing actions. | Amendments not retroactive; retroactivity rejected |
| Whether amendments merely clarify existing rights | The amendments clarify rights against individuals. | Amendments expand potential liability beyond prior scope. | Amendments not sufficient to revive pre-2010 DCWPA claims against individuals |
| Whether § 1983 claims against individual defendants are adequately pled | Allegations show personal involvement in retaliatory acts. | Plaintiff failed to plead personal involvement sufficiently. | § 1983 claims against individuals survive; pled adequately |
Key Cases Cited
- Payne v. District of Columbia, 741 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D.D.C. 2010) (DCWPA originally limited to the District; no individual liability pre-amendment)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (presumption against retroactive application of statutes)
- Lacek v. Washington Hosp. Ctr. Corp., 978 A.2d 1194 (D.C. 2009) (legislation affecting substantive rights prospective unless clear)
- Redman v. Potomac Place Assocs., LLC, 972 A.2d 316 (D.C. 2009) (retroactivity analysis in DC context)
- Wolf v. D.C. Rental Accommodations Comm'n, 414 A.2d 878 (D.C.1980) (retroactivity principles cited in contemplating amendment application)
- Iqbal v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (pleading standard requiring plausible claims)