Baumann v. District of Columbia
417 App. D.C. 472
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Baumann, an MPD officer and union official, released an Emergency Response Team recording from a barricade incident while criminal investigations were ongoing.
- MPD General Order 204.01 Part VI-C-1 bars disclosure of confidential information that may jeopardize investigations; Part VI-C-7 closes unreleasable documents; disclosure required prior authorization from the OUC.
- Baumann obtained the recording via a colleague and released a portion to reporters on June 5, 2009, after being given access for internal review.
- Internal Affairs investigated, Baumann faced a final adverse action for violating the General Order, and the Chief reduced his suspension on appeal, with the decision centering on Part VI-C-1.
- Baumann filed DCWPA and First Amendment claims against the District and MPD officials; district court granted summary judgment to defendants, and Baumann appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Part VI-C-1 barring disclosure of confidential information violates the First Amendment as applied to Baumann. | Baumann argues speech about barricade safety is protected**, and the restriction is overbroad and retaliatory. | MPD contends the restriction is narrowly tailored to protect ongoing investigations and public safety. | Part VI-C-1 is sufficiently tailored; no First Amendment violation. |
| Whether Baumann’s release of the ERT recording was a protected disclosure under the DCWPA as in effect in 2001. | Baumann contends his disclosures fit DCWPA protection because they related to mismanagement or public safety concerns. | Defendants argue the disclosures do not meet the statutory definition of protected disclosure under the 2001 DCWPA. | Baumann did not make a protected disclosure under the DCWPA; DCWPA claim fails. |
| Whether the DCWPA claims against individual supervisors were properly dismissed. | Baumann maintains individuals may be liable under DCWPA as supervisors. | DCWPA liability against individuals was not available under the pre-2010 statute. | DCWPA claim against individual defendants was properly dismissed; retroactivity considerations avoided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boehner v. McDermott, 484 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (confidential information restrictions; non-disclosure protections recognized)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (public employee speech; urgency of public concern and conduct)
- National Treasury Employees Union v. United States, 513 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1995) (Pickering balancing; government must show harms and direct alleviation)
- Sanjour v. EPA, 56 F.3d 85 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (tailoring and timing of restrictions; public interest in disclosure)
- Orange v. District of Columbia, 59 F.3d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (public employee speech; public safety considerations in disclosure)