Winder v. Erste
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22412
D.D.C.2011Background
- Winder, a former DCPS employee, held the position of General Manager of Transportation and worked under a series of one-year contracts from 1999 to 2003.
- In May 2002, discussions occurred about his title and position; DCPS maintains his position was abolished due to a reduction in force (RIF), with him not rehired until July 22, 2002.
- Plaintiff asserts he continued working and that the RIF did not affect him because he already signed a new contract.
- April 3, 2003, Winder was terminated while on medical leave, triggering contract-based and due process claims that survived initial dismissals and later summary judgment rulings.
- The District argues Winder was an at-will or probationary employee under DC laws, not a vested contract employee, affecting the viability of his contract and due process claims.
- The DC Circuit remanded the contract-based claims to resolve whether Winder had a vested property interest or could be terminated under the at-will framework, leaving unresolved issues of classification and timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Winder had a vested contract-based property interest in continued employment. | Winder argues he was a contract employee with a vested interest through the 2002-2003 contract. | DCPS contends he was an at-will or probationary employee under DC regulations. | Mixed question of law and fact; summary judgment denied. |
| Whether the one-year probationary requirement applies to Winder under DC regs for his 2002 appointment. | Regulations do not necessarily apply due to prior service; he completed earlier terms. | Regulations could render the 2002 appointment subject to probationary status. | Factual questions remain; summary judgment denied. |
| Whether the RIF and timing of the 2002 contract affect Winder's employment status and thus the contract claims. | RIF and contract timing show continued employment and entitlement to contract benefits. | RIF and new contract create ambiguity; status uncertain. | Genuine disputes over material facts; summary judgment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading.)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (two-pronged test for plausibility; threadbare recitals not enough.)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment shifting burden to moving party.)
- Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics & Coord. Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993) (liberalized notice pleading standard.)
- Phillips v. Bureau of Prisons, 591 F.2d 966 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (pleading standards in the D.C. Circuit context.)
- Hodge v. Evans Fin. Corp., 707 F.2d 1566 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (interpretation of 'permanent employment' in contract context.)
- Turner v. Federal Express Corp., 539 F. Supp. 2d 404 (D.D.C. 2008) (employment status under DC law; at-will considerations.)
- Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991) (at-will employment doctrine under D.C. law.)