Freeman v. District of Columbia, 60 A.3d 1131

Eight MPD officers sued the District under the DCWPA alleging retaliation for protected disclosures about MPD’s handling of off-duty security work at Gallery Place.
MPD initially denied PD-180 off-duty requests; Gallery Place ultimately hired MPD detail officers under a reimbursable detail arrangement.
Investigation into unauthorized off-duty work identified Freeman’s alleged brokering; Langley and Internal Affairs compiled and altered investigation materials prior to disciplinary actions.
A December 14, 2004 letter from the officers’ FOP attorney alleged coercive conduct by MPD and pressuring Gallery Place; FOX-5 aired a related broadcast on December 16.
Freeman was terminated; Fowler, McLaughlin, and Robin were suspended; Grooms eventually faced discipline in 2007 (not sustained); Lanier was named as a defendant in official capacity and later dismissed; the trial court granted partial summary judgment and the District’s post-trial motions.
The Superior Court’s judgment was vacated for McLaughlin’s claim, and the court remanded for judgment in favor of the District; McLaughlin’s DCWPA claim was ultimately decided as a matter of law in favor of the District on post-trial review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McLaughlin’s DCWPA claim survived at law.	McLaughlin had a protected disclosure and reasonable belief.	No reasonable belief; no protected disclosure.	District is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Whether Robin had a protected disclosure under the DCWPA.	Robin believed the conduct was illegal at the time of disclosure.	Robin lacked the requisite belief at the time of disclosure.	Summary judgment for District on Robin’s DCWPA claim."
Whether Dean, Anderson, and Williams had protected disclosures and suffered prohibited action.	There were threats/retaliation after the December 14 letter.	Hearsay and lack of admissible evidence preclude a finding of retaliation.	Affirm summary judgment against those officers; no DCWPA violation.
Whether Lanier should be dismissed as a defendant.	Lanier liable in her official capacity for DCWPA violations.	Official-capacity actions unnecessary; district remains sole defendant.	Lanier properly dismissed; district remains defendant.
Whether the trial rulings and evidentiary decisions were proper.	Admission of adverse action report, exclusion of certain testimony, and spoliation issues favored plaintiffs.	Rulings were within discretion and probative value outweighed prejudice.	Rulings affirmed; no reversible error.

Lachance v. White, 174 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (disinterested observer test for reasonableness of belief in misconduct)
Zirkle v. District of Columbia, 830 A.2d 1250 (D.C. 2003) (objective reasonableness standard for protected disclosures)
Johnson v. District of Columbia, 935 A.2d 1113 (D.C. 2007) (temporal proximity and pretext considerations in DCWPA claims)
Wilburn v. District of Columbia, 957 A.2d 921 (D.C. 2008) (policy alignment with federal/state whistleblower frameworks; knowledge of wrongdoing required)
Crawford v. District of Columbia, 891 A.2d 216 (D.C. 2006) (standard for evaluating DCWPA claims and remedies)