McCormick v. District of Columbia
410 U.S. App. D.C. 31
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- McCormick, a discharged Supervisory Correctional Officer, sues the District of Columbia and two officials under the WPA and for Fifth Amendment due process.
- Jan. 13, 2006 incident: central detention facility disturbance; McCormick allegedly struck a handcuffed inmate Tobias; internal investigation found fault with McCormick’s conduct.
- Internal Affairs, led by Beard, concluded McCormick struck Tobias and violated use-of-force guidelines; Director Brown terminated McCormick on March 9, 2006.
- Termination was based on the Internal Affairs finding, but the process included non-public reports; the department did not publish the investigation findings or place them in McCormick’s file.
- McCormick previously disclosed a 2005 mishandling of witness statements; the district court granted summary judgment; this appeal addresses retaliation under the WPA and a due process liberty-interest claim.
- Court reviews summary judgment de novo and applies McDonnell-Douglas framework to the WPA claim; court also analyzes a potential stigma-based due process theory under Roth/O’Donnell and Bishop v. Wood.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCormick proves a prima facie WPA retaliation case | McCormick’s protected disclosures contributed to his termination | No prima facie evidence linking protected activity to termination | No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether McCormick’s termination violated due process due to a protected liberty interest | Termination stigmatizes him and precludes future corrections work | At-will employee termination without public disclosure does not violate due process; Bishop v. Wood controls | No due-process violation; stigma claim insufficient; affirm for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for retaliation claims applies to WPA claims in summary judgment)
- Payne v. District of Columbia, 722 F.3d 345 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (requires prima facie evidence of contributing factor; temporal proximity matters but has limits)
- Johnson v. District of Columbia, 935 A.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (four-month lapse insufficient to prove causation)
- O’Donnell v. Barry, 148 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (discusses stigma and reputation theories for due process in at-will employment)
- Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1976) (limits due process rights for nonretention of untenured public employees; no hearing required where reasons not public)
- Roth v. Regents, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (due process limits on deprivation of liberty interests; применение to at-will employees)
- Doe v. DOJ, 753 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (due process implications for name-clearing hearings)
- Segal v. City of N.Y., 459 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2006) (flexible procedures for name-clearing hearings in stigma cases)
- Campbell v. Pierce Cnty., 741 F.2d 1342 (11th Cir. 1984) (due process adequacy when claimant can present evidence and be heard)