Cannon v. District of Columbia
405 U.S. App. D.C. 141
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- DC law bans double-dipping; retirees rehired in Protective Services faced salary offsets to reflect pension payments.
- Plaintiffs are MPD retirees who received Retirement Plan annuities while also earning salaries; 2011–2012 district began offsetting salaries by pension amounts.
- §5-723(e) required offset so annuity + current compensation equal to prior salary, but the District continued full salaries until 2011 and then began offsets.
- The District offered a choice between taking a pay cut or suspending pension payments in October 2011, which plaintiffs did not accept.
- Plaintiffs alleged FLSA violations (minimum wage/overtime) and various constitutional claims (Fifth Amendment, Equal Protection, First Amendment retaliation) arising from the offset and related actions.
- The district court granted summary judgment on FLSA and First Amendment claims and dismissed DC-law claims; district court later remanded on the FLSA issue for back pay calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the offset violates the FLSA salary basis test | Ford-Haynes/Neill/Weeks argue annuities are not compensation | District contends annuities count as compensation under §541.602 | FLSA violated; annuities not compensation for salary basis |
| Constitutional due process and takings claims | Plaintiffs had a cognizable property interest in salaries and annuities | No entitlement to both full salary and annuity; amendments do not grant a right | Claims fail; no cognizable entitlement under DC code §1-611.03(b) or §5-723(e) |
| Equal protection challenge to pay raises for retirees in MPD | Raises for some retirees violated equal protection | Rational basis supports raises due to differing duties; not similarly situated | Dismissed; rational-basis review sustains District’s actions |
| First Amendment retaliation claim (paper checks and firing) | Firing and payroll method retaliated against suit | No genuine retaliation; firing predated suit and payroll change not deterred rights | Claim rejected; no evidence of retaliatory intent; suppression not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Connolly v. McCall, 254 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2001) (policy against pension+salary may reflect public-fiscal concerns)
- Mascio v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. of Ohio, 160 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 1998) (double-dipping prohibitions)
- Orton v. Johnny's Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2012) (salary-basis test; exemption qualification)
- Hilbert v. District of Columbia, 23 F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (salary-basis concept in FLSA exemption)
- Figueroa v. D.C. Metro. Police Dep’t, 633 F.3d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (de novo review standard; standard for summary judgment)
- Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (threshold entitlement requirement for due process)
- Kentucky Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1989) (necessity of legitimate entitlement for due process)
- Convertino v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Rule 56(d) relief and discovery requirements)
- Wilburn v. Robinson, 480 F.3d 1140 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (retaliation standard for First Amendment claims)