Wayne Bridgeforth v. Sally Jewell
406 U.S. App. D.C. 29
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Wayne Bridgeforth, a U.S. Park Service police officer, sued after alleging supervisors retaliated by not nominating him for time-off awards following a 2007 settlement of his discrimination claim.
- He identified five specific acts in June–August 2007 (arrests, assisting rescues, preventing unlawful arrests, vehicle pursuit) that he says merited time-off awards.
- No nominations or recognitions were made for those incidents; two written commendations followed in September–October 2007 for other matters.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Department of the Interior on all claims; this appeal preserved only the retaliation claim.
- The question: whether failure to nominate Bridgeforth for discretionary time-off awards constituted a materially adverse action sufficient for a Title VII retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to nominate for time-off awards is a "materially adverse" action for Title VII retaliation | Bridgeforth: omission to nominate after protected activity was retaliation that materially harmed him | Government: non-nomination for a subjective, discretionary award is speculative and not an objectively tangible adverse action | Court: Not materially adverse here — too speculative given subjective criteria and multi-level discretionary approval |
| Whether prior award history created a non-speculative link between nomination and receipt of awards | Bridgeforth: prior awards (7 over 2003–2006) show pattern implying entitlement to nominations | Government: awards were scattered; no evidence nominations or awards were regular or predictable | Court: Plaintiff failed to show predictable nominations or that nomination reliably produced awards; pattern insufficient |
| Applicability of Douglas v. Donovan and Weber v. Battista | Bridgeforth relied on Weber to show awards can be objectively tied to benefits | Government relied on Douglas to show award processes are uncertain and speculative | Court: Case is closer to Douglas; Weber distinguishes only where a direct, predictable link (e.g., prior regular cash awards) exists |
| Whether context could make non-nomination actionable despite subjectivity | Bridgeforth: context of post-settlement period suggests retaliatory motive | Government: context does not overcome lack of evidence tying omission to tangible harm | Court: Context does not salvage claim absent non-speculative causal link; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (defines materially adverse action in retaliation context and requires actions that could dissuade a reasonable worker)
- Douglas v. Donovan, 559 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (failure to nominate for a subjective, multi-stage award is too speculative to be materially adverse absent proof of tangible harm)
- Weber v. Battista, 494 F.3d 179 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (lowered evaluation that predictably caused loss of cash awards can be materially adverse where link between evaluation and award is direct and regular)
- McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (elements of a Title VII retaliation claim: protected activity, materially adverse action, causation)