88 F.4th 289
D.C. Cir.2023Background
- Michael W. Langeman, a former FBI Special Agent, was terminated in 2021 after a DOJ OIG probe into the FBI's mishandling of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse investigation.
- The OIG report found Langeman failed to follow key investigative procedures, which contributed to delays and further abuse; he was not named in the report but later identified.
- Langeman was dismissed by letter, citing violation of FBI Offense Codes and damage to the FBI's reputation; the dismissal was final and not subject to appeal.
- Langeman filed suit alleging violations of his Fifth Amendment due process rights, claiming deprivation of a property interest in his continued employment and a liberty interest in his reputation.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, finding the Freeh Memo retained agency discretion for summary dismissals and that Langeman had not plausibly pled deprivation of a liberty interest.
- Langeman appealed, arguing both procedural due process and liberty interest violations, as well as seeking mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property Interest in Continued Employment | Freeh Memo created entitlement to employment and required process | Freeh Memo reserved agency discretion for summary dismissal | No protected property interest was created by Freeh Memo |
| Liberty Interest: Reputation-plus Claim | Defamation and stigma accompanied his termination by public statements | No public disclosure of identity by government; privilege | No defamation by government in connection with discharge |
| Liberty Interest: Stigma or Disability Claim | Dismissal and associated stigma foreclosed law enforcement employment | No allegation of automatic/broad exclusion or rejected jobs | Insufficient allegations; no broad exclusion or job rejections |
| Mandamus Relief Framework | Due process violations entitled him to extraordinary remedy | No clear right to relief due to insufficient due process | No mandamus relief; due process claim failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (constitutional property interests derive from independent sources limiting discretion)
- Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (1989) (mandatory language required to create protected interest)
- Mosrie v. Barry, 718 F.2d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (defamation-plus doctrine requires discharge and defamation together)
- Kartseva v. Dep’t of State, 37 F.3d 1524 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (stigma or disability claim requires automatic exclusion from employment category)
- Crooks v. Mabus, 845 F.3d 412 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (government discretion and adverse publicity not attributed to the government)