Payne v. District of Columbia Government
406 U.S. App. D.C. 84
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Payne, an elevator inspector for DCRA, was terminated in 2007 amid internal disputes over inspections, sealing elevators, and an external ethics investigation.
- Payne alleged DCWPA retaliation, plus related civil rights claims, arising from his protected disclosures to the City Council and public statements about inspector issues.
- A DCIG OIG investigation found Payne solicited private business while on duty; the Department issued a notice of suspension and ultimately terminated him after ethics findings.
- The district court granted summary judgment on Counts I–V, including the DCWPA claim, and Payne appealed seeking reversal as to the whistleblower claims.
- At issue is whether the DCWPA permitted suit against individual supervisors and whether the 2009 amendment creating such a cause of action is retroactive.
- The court held that the pre-2009 DCWPA did not authorize claims against individual supervisors and that the 2009 amendment is not retroactive, leading to affirmed judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DCWPA allowed actions against individual supervisors | Payne argues amendment authorizes individuals | District contends pre-2009 Act did not authorize individuals | No action against individuals under pre-2009 Act |
| Retroactivity of the 2009 amendment to DCWPA | Amendment retroactive to cover past conduct | Amendment not retroactive absent clear legislative intent | Amendment not retroactive |
| Causation showing under DCWPA for prima facie retaliation | Protected disclosures caused termination | Evidence shows legitimate independent reasons for termination | No causal connection established; summary judgment for District |
| Preservation of First Amendment claim | First Amendment claim should be considered | Claim was not properly argued on appeal | Forfeiture; First Amendment claim not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
- Johnson v. District of Columbia, 935 A.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (cuts off weak temporal proximity as proof of causation)
- LaFontant v. INS, 135 F.3d 158 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (distinguishes procedural vs substantive changes for retroactivity)
- Wolf v. D.C. Rental Accommodations Comm’n, 414 A.2d 878 (D.C. 1980) (retroactivity requires clear legislative intent)
- Redman v. Potomac Place Assocs., LLC, 972 A.2d 316 (D.C. 2009) (retroactivity requires express language or clear implication)
- Shaw v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 605 F.3d 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (treats DC statute interpretation consistent with DC Court of Appeals)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard; evidentiary burden on movant)