Stewart v. District of Columbia, 290 A.3d 937

Probationary correctional officer Troy Stewart reported and wrote an incident report about events in Cell 71 at D.C. Jail on April 10, 2015, involving Cpl. Jonathan Evans and an inmate whose mouth was bleeding after a confrontation.
Surveillance video shows a brief struggle at the cell door and that an inmate later threw liquid at Stewart through the food slot; Stewart’s written DCDC-1 form did not describe any use of force or injuries.
After Stewart submitted his report, Major Joseph Pettiford allegedly told him to change material facts (warning the report could get him fired); Stewart refused.
Pettiford recommended Stewart’s nonretention; Stewart was terminated; he sued the District and Pettiford under the District of Columbia Whistleblower Protection Act (DCWPA) claiming (1) protected verbal and written disclosures and (2) protection for refusing to follow an illegal order to falsify his report.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment as to the alleged protected disclosures but reversed as to the unlawful-order/refusal claim and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stewart’s verbal report to Cpl. Rodriguez was a DCWPA-protected disclosure	Stewart: his verbal report that the inmate was "babbling" and needed welfare check disclosed abuse/serious error	District: statements were vague and did not disclose abuse of authority or a serious agency error	Not protected — affirmed
Whether Stewart’s written DCDC-1 report was a DCWPA-protected disclosure	Stewart: the report (and the note that Evans told him to "keep counting it’s ok") evidenced an abuse of authority and violation of de-escalation policy	District: the written report on its face did not accuse Evans or reveal a debatable agency error	Not protected — affirmed
Whether Pettiford ordered Stewart to falsify/change his report and Stewart’s refusal to comply was protected refusal to follow an illegal order	Stewart: Pettiford urged him to change material facts to avoid "going against" Evans and threatened job loss; refusal to falsify is protected	District: surveillance/video and documentary record show Stewart observed events and failed to report them fully; Pettiford’s later memos disciplined Evans, undermining a cover-up claim	Genuine dispute of material fact exists about Pettiford’s alleged order; summary judgment improper on this claim — reversed and remanded

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence can, in rare cases, so contradict a party’s story that summary judgment is appropriate)
Wilburn v. District of Columbia, 957 A.2d 921 (D.C. 2008) (elements and protected-disclosure standard under the DCWPA)
Freeman v. District of Columbia, 60 A.3d 1131 (D.C. 2012) (employee must hold an objectively reasonable belief at time of disclosure)
Robinson v. Pezzat, 818 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (video can "quite clearly" demonstrate falsity of testimony at summary judgment)
Rodriguez v. District of Columbia, 124 A.3d 134 (D.C. 2015) (DCWPA protects refusal to comply with an illegal order)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment appropriate when record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for nonmoving party)
Poindexter v. District of Columbia, 104 A.3d 848 (D.C. 2014) (definition of abuse of authority under DCWPA)