Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

Nos. 16-AA-735 & 16-AA-867

CARYN HINES

and

CLAUDIA A. BARBER, PETITIONERS,

V.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMISSION

ON SELECTION AND TENURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES,

RESPONDENT.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the District of Columbia

Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges

(COST 1-16)

(Argued April 3, 2018 Decided April 17, 2018)* 

Robert J. Baror for petitioner Hines.

Donald M. Temple for petitioner Barber.

Jason Lederstein, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Karl A. Racine, 

Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General at 

the time the brief was filed, and Loren L. AliKhan, Deputy Solicitor General at the 

time the brief was filed, were on the brief.

 

*

 The decision in these consolidated appeals was originally issued as an 

unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Judgment. It is now being published on 

the respondent’s motion. 
2

Before GLICKMAN and FISHER, Associate Judges, and FARRELL, Senior 

Judge.

GLICKMAN, Associate Judge: In these consolidated matters, petitioners 

Hines and Barber ask this court to review decisions by the Commission on 

Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges (“COST”) declining to 

reappoint Hines and removing Barber as administrative law judges. We dismiss 

the petitions for lack of jurisdiction.

This court’s jurisdiction to directly review administrative agency decisions is 

restricted by the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act (“DC APA”) 

to “contested cases.” See D.C. Code § 2-510 (a) (2012 Repl.); Farrell v. District of 

Columbia Police & Firefighters’ Ret. & Relief Bd., 151 A.3d 490, 492 (D.C. 

2017). Proceedings involving “[t]he selection or tenure of an officer or employee 

of the District” are expressly excluded from the definition of a “contested case,” 

see D.C. Code § 2-502 (8)(B) (2012 Repl.), and hence are not directly reviewable 

by this court. A decision to remove or not to reappoint an employee of the District

falls squarely within this exclusion. See Kennedy v. Barry, 516 A.2d 176, 178 

(D.C. 1986); Barry v. Wilson, 448 A.2d 244, 246 (D.C. 1982); Wells v. District of 

Columbia Bd. of Ed., 386 A.2d 703, 704-06 (D.C. 1978). As administrative law 

judges, petitioners were employees of the District. See D.C. Code § 1-609.08 

(2012 Repl.) (“The following employees of the District shall be deemed to be in the 
3

Excepted Service[:] . . . (15) . . . the Administrative Law Judges . . . .”) (emphasis 

added). Accordingly, the proceedings before COST resulting in the removal of 

Barber and the non-reappointment of Hines were not contested cases, and this 

court has no jurisdiction to consider their petitions for review.1

The petitions for review in these matters are hereby dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction.

So ordered.

 

1

 In general, initial judicial review of decisions concerning the selection or 

tenure of District employees is properly sought in Superior Court. See District of 

Columbia Hous. Auth. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Human Rts. & Local 

Bus. Dev., 733 A.2d 338, 342 (D.C. 1999); Wilson, 448 A.2d at 246. Respondent 

argues that petitioners are not entitled to judicial review at all on the merits of 

COST’s personnel actions in their cases. We express no view on that question.