By Mitchel Wilson
In Bridgeforth v. Jewell, the court granted the United States Park Service, summary judgment because police officer Wayne Bridgeforth’s claims of retaliation were too speculative for trial. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence linking the denial of Bridgeforth’s time off award with his “protected activity” of having filed a discrimination claim.
Prior to the events giving rise to this case, Bridgeforth filed an employment discrimination claim against his employer. They settled in May of 2007. In the past, Bridgeforth had received awards of paid time off on at least seven occasions for exemplary police work and service to the Park Service. He received one award in 2003, four in 2005, and two in 2006. After his settlement, however, the Park Service did not award him for three months. Bridgeforth claims he participated in five busts that should have resulted in an award. After the three months had passed, Bridgeforth received written commendations in September and again in October
The rules/criteria for receiving an award are: (Parks Service lists the criteria as:)
Making a high quality contribution involving a difficult or important project or assignment; displaying special initiative…; ensuring the mission… is accomplished during a difficult period…; using initiative and creativity in making improvements in a product, activity program, or service; providing exceptional service…; developing new procedures or guidelines that improve the quality of services provided…; other comparable employee achievements.
In three months after settlement, Bridgeforth caught a lot of criminals, and never received a time off award, nor any other kind of recognition.
First, the court explained that to succeed in a claim of retaliation the plaintiff-employee must show (1) he engaged in protected activity, (2) the employer undertook materially adverse action against him, and (3) that the adverse action was motivated, at least in part by the protected activity.
The Court concluded that Bridgeforth engaged in protected activity by filing his discrimination claim, but he could not show that his employer’s failure to award him time off for his good deeds is materially adverse because the awards are too speculative. Although the deeds he cited to are praise worthy, there is simply not enough here to show that he was guaranteed the time-off award he seeks.
It concluded that Bridgeforth’s claims are too speculative for the court to conclude that he necessarily would have received the awards but for his protected activity:
The path from Bridgeforth’s alleged acts of bravery to a time-off award is a labyrinth, with many ways to fail but only one way to succeed. Bridgeforth’s claim is especially weak, because he has failed to produce any evidence that would establish a direct and non-speculative connection between action, nomination, and award. Although he received seven time-off awards over a three-year period preceding the summer of 2007, he tells us nothing about them that would ca st suspicion upon why he was not nominated for such an award during the three months following the settlement of his claims.
