901 F. Supp. 2d 63
D.D.C.2012Background
- In 1997 Steinberg was terminated as an EMT by FEMS and appealed to the OEA.
- In May 2004 the OEA reversed the termination and ordered reinstatement with back pay and benefits; the order became final in June 2004.
- FEMS did not reinstate or pay Steinberg for eight years and challenged compliance with the 2004 order.
- OEA issued a 2008 order demanding compliance; FEMS responded that compliance depended on Steinberg abandoning disability claims.
- Steinberg filed suit in July 2009 alleging violations of substantive and procedural due process; summary judgment motions followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 1983 claims are timely | Steinberg contends timely by accrual when noncompliance began. | Defendants argue accrual in 2004 or earlier, barred by statute. | Not barred; genuine issue as to accrual exists. |
| Whether injunctive relief claims are moot | Steinberg seeks ongoing compliance and back pay. | Letter indicating compliance moots relief. | Not moot; ongoing relief remains possible. |
| Whether Steinberg can establish municipal liability under § 1983 | Fire Chief as policymaker and deliberate indifference can show policy or custom. | No clear policy or custom; supervised by Mayor; no moving force shown. | Issues of policymaker status and moving-force remain; possible Monell liability survives. |
| Whether noncompliance with the OEA order violated substantive due process | Deprivation of a property interest in the OEA orders without rational basis. | Actions had legitimate rational basis and were not legally irrational. | Substantive due process claim granted cannot survive summary judgment. |
| Whether procedural due process claim survives | Post-deprivation relief not adequately provided; there was a deprivation after favorable ruling. | Pre-deprivation process through CMPA suffices; post-deprivation remedy exists. | Procedural due process claim survives summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (establishes municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (no respondeat superior for municipal liability)
- Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (policy or custom must cause violation)
- Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (supervisor policymaker liability; final policymaker concept)
- City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988) (designation of policymaking officials; state-law issue)
- Elkins v. District of Columbia, 690 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (substantive due process requires legal irrationality not shown here)
- Washington Teachers’ Union Local No. 6 v. Dist. of Columbia, 109 F.3d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (test for substantive due process without fundamental rights or animus)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (post-deprivation remedies as due process safeguard)
- 3M Co. v. Browner, 17 F.3d 1453 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (accrual and timing principles for § 1983 claims)
- Toomey v. Cammack, 345 A.2d 453 (D.C. 1975) (accrual timing principles for claims)
- Hall v. Clinton, 285 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (accrual date and notice considerations in § 1983 cases)
- Fitzgerald v. Seamans, 553 F.2d 220 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (notice and accrual concepts cited in § 1983 analysis)
- Steinberg v. Gray, 815 F. Supp. 2d 293 (D.D.C. 2011) (prior § 1983/OEA context informing current decision)
- Elkins v. District of Columbia, 690 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (substantive due process analysis under rational basis)