GOODE v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1:20-cv-01332

Background

The D.C. Council created the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and a five-member Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges (COST) with final authority to appoint/reappoint ALJs; COST must "reappoint" an ALJ who satisfactorily performed and is likely to continue to do so under D.C. regulations.
Jesse Goode, an OAH ALJ since 2005, sought reappointment in December 2016 for a third term; he was active in unionization and served as president of the Federation of Administrative Law Judges (FALJ).
During the reappointment period Goode opposed creation/appointment of a new Principal ALJ (PALJ); he alleges OAH officials (including CALJ Adams and others) retaliated for his union activity and sought to block his reappointment.
CALJ Adams opened an inquiry, issued a negative, detailed recommendation citing allegedly hostile/abrasive conduct (not performance failures), and COST held hearings in July and September 2017 before denying reappointment. Goode alleges procedural defects, bias, ex parte contacts, and defective COST appointments.
FALJ filed a PERB action: PERB found an unfair labor practice as to a coercive conversation by OAH counsel (Natale) but rejected the Union’s claim that anti‑union sentiment motivated Adams’s recommendation; PERB’s decision was adverse to the Union on the motivation issue.
Goode sued under § 1983 for First and Fifth Amendment violations and sought reinstatement and damages; the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in full (March 2021).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Goode had a property interest in reappointment and was denied due process (Fifth Amendment)	Goode says D.C. regulations create a legitimate entitlement to reappointment and the process he received was constitutionally deficient (insufficient notice, no cross‑examination, bias, ex parte contacts, defective appointments, sham hearings).	Defendants say Goode received constitutionally adequate process (detailed notice, multiple opportunities to supplement and to appear and argue, counsel allowed) and regulatory defects do not translate into constitutional violations.	Court: Goode had a protected property interest but received adequate process; due‑process claim dismissed.
Whether COST's denial was motivated by Goode's union activity (First Amendment retaliation)	Goode contends his union leadership and opposition to the PALJ appointment were protected activity and a substantial/motivating factor in the non‑reappointment.	Defendants: no facts tying COST’s adverse action to union activity; PERB already decided anti‑union motivation was not a substantial factor.	Court: Issue precluded by PERB on whether anti‑union sentiment motivated Adams; excluding Adams’s finding, Goode’s allegations fail to plausibly show retaliation. Claim dismissed.
Whether the District is liable under municipal liability theories (policy, custom, deliberate indifference)	Goode alleges a custom or policymaker action resulting in constitutional violations and inadequate training/response.	Defendants: no pleaded policy/custom, no facts showing history of similar misconduct, COST not a policymaker; no deliberate indifference pleaded.	Court: Complaint fails to plead municipal liability; claims against the District dismissed.
Whether individual COST members are entitled to qualified immunity	Goode argues defendants should be liable individually for constitutional deprivations.	Defendants invoke qualified immunity because the alleged rights were not clearly established and their actions were discretionary.	Court: Even assuming a violation, the rights were not clearly established; individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity. Claims dismissed.

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requires plausibility)
Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property‑interest analysis)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for what process is due)
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (pretermination notice and opportunity to respond)
Pearson v. District of Columbia, 644 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2009) (ALJ reappointment due‑process framework)
Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law standard for qualified immunity)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity doctrine)
Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 808 F.3d 81 (de facto officer doctrine)
DeWitt v. District of Columbia, 43 A.3d 291 (issue‑preclusion elements in D.C.)
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138 (preclusion from administrative adjudications)