Darian McKinney v. DC
142 F.4th 784
| D.C. Cir. | 2025Background
- Darian McKinney, a former DC public schools teacher, was investigated for sexual harassment but later resolved the matter through a Settlement Agreement with DCPS, resigning but retaining the right to reapply for teaching jobs.
- The Settlement allowed McKinney to apply for DCPS positions without the usual three-year bar due to his buyout.
- When McKinney reapplied and received contingent job offers, DCPS blocked his hiring, citing failed background checks (which he alleges never actually occurred), and did not provide him an opportunity to appeal the findings.
- McKinney filed suit for breach of contract (implied covenant of good faith) and for deprivation of property and liberty interests without due process under the Constitution.
- The district court dismissed all claims, finding the Settlement did not guarantee "fair consideration" of applications and there was no due process entitlement to job reinstatement, eligibility, or reputation-based liberty interest.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed, with a dissent arguing McKinney plausibly alleged breach of good faith and denial of a liberty interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract – implied good faith & fair dealing | DCPS was obliged under the Settlement to fairly consider McKinney’s applications and not bar him via fictitious background check failures. | Settlement only allowed reapplication; did not assure fair consideration or rehiring; no breach. | No breach: Contract only allowed McKinney to apply, not to have applications fairly considered or processed beyond norms. |
| Due process – Property interest in employment | McKinney claimed property interest in former job, contingent offers, and eligibility based on Settlement & DC law. | No protected interest; offers were contingent on statutory background checks, Settlement gave no employment guarantee. | No property interest: Legally protected expectation absent; offers were conditional and Settlement gave no such right. |
| Due process – Liberty interest in pursuing profession | DCPS’s actions and "present danger" designation barred him from DC teaching, impacting his reputation and opportunities. | No formal change to legal status, no binding disqualification alleged; no automatic exclusion from field. | No liberty interest: No binding status change or formal disqualification found on pleadings. |
| Procedural requirements under DC law (background checks, notice, appeal) | DCPS failed to follow statutory background check and appeal rights after job offers, breaching contractual and statutory duties. | Statutes for child safety do not create enforceable rights for applicants to demand background checks or appeals unless background check occurs. | DC statutory procedures are not contractually incorporated for individualized consideration; no breach found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (defining protected property and liberty interests for due process purposes)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Kartseva v. Dep’t of State, 37 F.3d 1524 (requirements for due process claims based on government employment exclusion)
- Hall v. Ford, 856 F.2d 255 (expectation of public employment based on contract/statute for due process)
- Molerio v. FBI, 749 F.2d 815 (no entitlement to appointment to particular government positions)