UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JODI BREITERMAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 16-893 (TJK) UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION United States Capitol Police employee Jodi Breiterman sued USCP, alleging that her suspension and demotion resulted from unlawful gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Congressional Accountability Act and the First Amendment. USCP tells a different story, asserting that it suspended Breiterman for remarking to fellow employees that women had to “sleep with someone” to get ahead there, and that it demoted her for leaking a picture of an unattended USCP firearm to the press. In response, Breiterman largely admits to the conduct attributed to her but still claims that USCP singled her out because of her gender and in retaliation for her protected activity. USCP has moved for summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant its motion. Factual and Procedural Background Breiterman is a private first class in the United States Capitol Police (“USCP”), where she has worked since 2002. 1 Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“Def’s UF”), ECF No. 65-2 ¶¶ 73–74. At the time of the events underlying this suit, Breiterman was a sergeant, the lowest USCP rank considered management. Id. ¶¶ 8, 82. 1 These facts are undisputed unless otherwise stated. In February 2014, Breiterman submitted her preference for an open position in the Protective Services Bureau (“PSB”), Investigations Division, Intelligence Section. Id. ¶ 111. Breiterman says that a lieutenant in the Investigations Division called her and told her that she would get the job. Id. ¶ 112. Deputy Chief Chad Thomas, head of the PSB, had in fact selected Breiterman as his top choice for the position, but he still had to meet with then-Assistant Chief Daniel Malloy and the other deputy chiefs before the selection could be completed. Id. ¶ 113. Assistant Chief Malloy, however, “vetoed” Breiterman’s selection. Id. ¶¶ 113, 117. Ultimately, Deputy Chief Thomas offered the job to his second choice, Sergeant Joliana Cobbin, even though Sergeant Cobbin had not specifically requested the Intelligence Section position. Id. ¶ 117. Breiterman filed a Request for Counseling in May 2014, followed by a Request for Mediation in June 2014, with the USCP’s Office of Compliance, alleging that she was not selected for the Intelligence Section job because of her race, in violation of the Congressional Accountability Act. Id. ¶¶ 124–25. Breiterman is white and Sergeant Cobbin and Assistant Chief Malloy are both African-American. Def’s Ex. 2, Attach. 1, ECF No. 65-4 at 140:18– 141:4. Breiterman chose not to pursue her claim further following mediation. Def’s UF ¶ 130. Also in May or June 2014, Breiterman, while talking with administrative staff and a sergeant, made a comment about a female private first class she believed was “transferred . . . to a specialty department due to her [romantic] relationship with [a] Deputy Chief.” Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl’s Opp.”), ECF No. 66 at 18; Def’s UF ¶¶ 133–34, 139. During that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals