Court Opinion

ID: 9404601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 16:01:26.11915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.673922
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 22-7141                                                    September Term, 2022
                                                               FILED ON: JUNE 23, 2023

QING LU,
                       APPELLANT

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.,
                   APPELLEES

                           Appeal from the United States District Court
                                   for the District of Columbia
                                       (No. 1:20-cv-00461)

       Before: HENDERSON, WILKINS and WALKER, Circuit Judges

                                        JUDGMENT

        We considered this appeal on the record before the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and the briefs of the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. R. 34(j).
After considering the issues, we have determined that a published opinion is unnecessary. See
D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is

       ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s grant of summary judgment be
affirmed.

                                          *      *       *

        Qing Lu repeatedly alleged that her coworker, S.B., faked his wife’s pregnancy to get
paternity leave. Lu’s employer (the D.C. Department of Consumer Regulatory Affairs), the
Office of Inspector General, the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability, and the
Executive Office of the Mayor all concluded Lu’s allegations are false. But Lu wouldn’t drop it.
She repeatedly harassed S.B. about her fake-baby theory.

       S.B. grew tired of Lu’s harassment and lodged a workplace complaint against her. After
an investigation, Lu was suspended for eight days. Lu then sued, arguing that her suspension
                                               1
violated the Whistleblower Protection Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the
defendants, and Lu appealed. *

         To prevail on a Whistleblower Protection Act claim, “an employee must demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence (1) that he made a protected disclosure, (2) that a supervisor
retaliated or took or threatened to take a prohibited personnel action against him, and (3) that his
protected disclosure was a contributing factor to the retaliation or prohibited personnel
action.” Baumann v. D.C., 795 F.3d 209, 219 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). Here, the first of
those three inquiries depends on “whether a reasonable juror with knowledge of the essential facts
known to and readily ascertainable by the employee could find that” Lu “disclosed an objectively
serious governmental act of gross mismanagement, gross misuse or waste of public funds, abuse
of authority, a material violation of local or federal law, or a substantial and specific danger to
public health and safety.” Coleman v. D.C., 794 F.3d 49, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (cleaned up).

        No reasonable juror could so find here. The investigations into Lu’s claims confirmed
that S.B. had properly filled out paternity leave documents, which included “a doctor’s note and
pictures taken when a newborn was pulled out of [S.B.’s] wife’s body.” JA 1743. Lu presented
no compelling evidence to rebut those documents. She even admitted that her theory “sounds
crazy.” JA 884.

        Accordingly, Lu has failed to make the first of the three showings required to prevail on
her whistleblower claim. No reasonable juror could find that Lu’s allegations disclosed an
objectively serious governmental act of mismanagement, misuse, or waste of public funds.

         For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court.

                                                 *        *        *

       This disposition is unpublished. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). We direct the Clerk to withhold
this mandate until seven days after resolution of a timely petition for panel or en banc rehearing.
See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41(a)(1).

                                                     Per Curiam

                                                                        FOR THE COURT:
                                                                        Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                               BY:      /s/
                                                                        Daniel J. Reidy
                                                                        Deputy Clerk

* Lu’s complaint also alleged a violation of the First Amendment, but she did not appeal the district court’s decision
on those grounds.
                                                          2