International Union, United Government Security Officers of America v. Clark
878 F. Supp. 2d 127
D.D.C.2012Background
- Five CSOs were medically disqualified and terminated under USMS annual medical review procedures.
- CBAs between private security companies and the Union govern suspension/termination with just-cause limits.
- USPHS doctors review medical qualifications; if not qualified, a disqualification letter is issued and a 14‑day replacement application is sought.
- Int’l Union case previously held process was constitutionally sufficient for related claims.
- Court now evaluates whether the five remaining Plaintiffs have a property interest and whether due process was satisfied.
- The 2003 and 2010 decisions set precedent balancing private employment interests against government security needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have a property interest in continued employment | Pls. have a legitimate expectation via CBAs | CBAs largely at-will; no property interest | Yes; plaintiffs have a property interest under the CBAs |
| Whether due process afforded was constitutionally sufficient | Insufficient notice and opportunity to respond | Process was adequate and consistent with Int’l Union | Yes; due process was sufficient under Mathews v. Eldridge and Loudermill |
| Whether law-of-the-case prevents reconsideration of property-interest issue | Law of the case forecloses reconsideration | Law of the case does not bar reconsideration in light of new facts | No; law of the case did not foreclose reconsideration |
| Impact of prior rulings on current due process claims | Earlier ruling binds the court | New facts allow reexamination | No; earlier ruling acknowledged interlocutory nature and allowed review based on new evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1959) (recognizes property interest under Fifth Amendment)
- Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interests defined by existing rules or understandings)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due process balancing factors for pre/post deprivation process)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (pre- and post-deprivation process requirements)
- Int’l Union, United Gov’t Sec. Officers of Am. v. Clark, 706 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2010) (prior related due process ruling in same litigation context)
- Hall v. Ford, 856 F.2d 255 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (objective expectation of continued employment under contracts)
- SFIC Properties, Inc. v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 103 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 1996) (implied just-cause clauses in CBAs when implied by contract)
- Smith v. Kerrville Bus Co., Inc., 709 F.2d 914 (5th Cir. 1988) (respecting just-cause limitations in labor contracts)
- Wilson v. MVM, Inc., 475 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2007) (due process sufficiency where response opportunity exists)
- Dickeson v. DAW Forest Products Co., 827 F.2d 627 (9th Cir. 1987) (importance of just-cause protections in CBAs)