Shirvinski v. United States Coast Guard
673 F.3d 308
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Shirvinski, a private at-will consultant to MISC, contracted via MISC to SFA under a Coast Guard Deepwater project; contract termination followed internal Coast Guard/contractor concerns about his conduct.
- SFA, Booz Allen, and the Coast Guard interacted over Shirvinski's role and alleged misconduct on the Deepwater project, with communications among Hoshowsky, Fontana, Ellis, Scott, and Armstrong regarding removal.
- SFA directed Shirvinski’s termination after investigations; the Coast Guard did not directly terminate him but sought corrective action through SFA.
- Shirvinski sued in federal court asserting a procedural due process claim against the Coast Guard and state tort claims against Booz Allen (defamation, conspiracy, tortious interference).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants; on appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding no cognizable due process injury and failure of state tort claims against Booz Allen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shirvinski has a cognizable procedural due process liberty interest. | Shirvinski claims government defamation/removal injured his liberty. | Coast Guard actions do not constitute a cognizable liberty deprivation. | No cognizable due process injury; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether the Coast Guard's involvement violated due process by directing removal of Shirvinski. | Coast Guard requested his removal and thus bears state action. | No direct coercion or control; SFA made the removal. | No state action; Coast Guard not liable. |
| Whether Booz Allen is liable for civil conspiracy under Virginia law. | Booz Allen conspired with Coast Guard personnel to remove Shirvinski. | No evidence of joint unlawful act or agreement; speculation insufficient. | Summary judgment for Booz Allen affirmed on conspiracy claims. |
| Whether Booz Allen is liable for statutory conspiracy under Virginia law. | Statutory conspiracy with intent to injure Shirvinski's reputation. | Injury to personal employment prospects not covered; not a business injury under statute. | No treble-damages conspiracy actionable; affirmed. |
| Whether Shirvinski can sustain tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. | Singh interfered with Shirvinski's business prospects through improper methods. | Interference absent improper methods; actions were workplace contention. | Dismissed; no improper methods shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1976) (defamation alone not a due process injury without loss of government employment)
- Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1991) (reputation injury requires more than due process injury to liberty)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (U.S. 1986) (due process not a font for tort liability in private conduct)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (governmental operations and public-private interactions; limits on liability in contracts context)
- Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (U.S. 1982) (government action and coercion standards for state responsibility)
- Kartseva v. Department of State, 37 F.3d 1524 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (subcontractor removal; required alteration of status or largely precluded future opportunities for due process)