Court Opinion

ID: 9928830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 23:01:01.522372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:54.671310
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                       FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
                                     )
DARIAN MCKINNEY,                     )
                                     )
                  Plaintiff,         )
                                     )
      v.                             )  Civil Action No. 22-2137 (ABJ)
                                     )
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,                )
                                     )
                  Defendant.         )
____________________________________)

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Plaintiff Darian McKinney, a former teacher with the District of Columbia Public Schools

(“DCPS”) brings this action against defendant, the District of Columbia, alleging that its decision

not to rehire him breached a settlement agreement between the parties and deprived him of due

process. See Compl. [Dkt. # 1-2]. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for

failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Def.’s Mot. to

Dismiss [Dkt # 7] (“Mot.”). Because plaintiff fails to state a claim of breach of contract or any

violation of due process, the Court will grant the motion.

                                        BACKGROUND

        The following facts are set forth in the complaint. Plaintiff is a health and physical

education teacher certified to teach in the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland. Compl.

¶¶ 8–9. He currently teaches and coaches at a public school in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

Compl. ¶ 11. Plaintiff was employed as a DCPS teacher from 2015 through 2018. Compl. ¶ 12.

As part of his hiring process in 2015, DCPS conducted a routine background check. Compl. ¶ 13.

It informed plaintiff that he failed the background check, but he successfully appealed the
determination to the D.C. Commission on Human Rights and began teaching at a school in the

District in 2015. Compl. ¶¶ 14–15.

        Plaintiff alleges that in 2018, “an event occurred which caused DCPS to conduct a new

background check.” Compl. ¶ 16. The “event” is not identified in the complaint. In the same

year, a “separate dispute” arose between the parties regarding plaintiff’s employment. Compl.

¶ 17.   Plaintiff does not describe the dispute in his complaint, but he states that it was

handled administratively, and he was placed on administrative leave in the summer of 2019.

Compl. ¶¶ 17–18. On November 1, 2019, the parties resolved “all of the issues between them” by

entering into a written settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”).         Compl. ¶ 27; see

Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Mot. [Dkt. # 7-1]. As part of the agreement, plaintiff agreed to

resign from his employment with DCPS with a retroactive effective date of August 27, 2019.

Settlement Agreement at 2. The agreement also provided that plaintiff could apply for DCPS

teaching positions for the 2020 school year, and that if he was rehired within one year of the

agreement, he would not have a break in service for purposes of his pension, salary, and sick leave

benefits. Compl. ¶¶ 29–30.

        In July 2020, the principal of Kelly Miller Middle School contacted plaintiff about a

teaching vacancy in the health and physical education department. Compl. ¶ 31. Plaintiff

interviewed for the position and received an offer, which he accepted, so his name was submitted

to DCPS for administrative processing, including the mandatory background check. Compl.

¶¶ 32–33. In August 2020, the “DCPS Career Office” informed plaintiff in an email that the DCPS

Office of Security found him ineligible because of a “failed” background check. Compl. ¶ 34.

Plaintiff claims that DCPS did not in fact conduct a background check, and that there was no

legitimate basis for him to have failed one. Compl. ¶¶ 35–36. He further alleges that he sought

                                                2
to appeal the failed background check by repeatedly contacting DCPS, but that DCPS never

responded “and did not provide him with its actual written determination of ineligibility, or any

appeals process for it.” Compl. ¶ 49. 1

       In early 2021, plaintiff again applied for positions with DCPS. Compl. ¶ 50. But he alleges

that some of his applications were “never acknowledged” by the school district’s electronic hiring

system, and that he was found ineligible for other positions due to a “failed” background check,

even though he had not yet interviewed for, been offered, or accepted a position, and had not “been

submitted for background check processing.” Compl. ¶¶ 51–52. He claims that as in 2020, he did

not receive any mailed written determination of ineligibility or instructions about the appeals

process from the DCPS Office of Security. Compl. ¶ 54. While plaintiff alleges that he repeatedly

contacted DCPS to try to appeal the “failed” background checks, he did not receive any responses.

Compl. ¶¶ 57–58.

       In the spring of 2021, plaintiff applied and interviewed for a teaching position at Eliot Hine

Middle School in the health and physical education department. Compl. ¶¶ 61–63. After he

accepted the offer, his name was submitted for the administrative hiring process, including the

mandatory background check. Compl. ¶ 64. But plaintiff claims that in May 2021, the DCPS

Career Office emailed him that the DCPS Office of Security had again determined that he was

ineligible for hire due to a “failed” background check. Compl. ¶ 65. Plaintiff alleges that no

1       Plaintiff asserts that he had successfully appealed two failed background checks to the D.C.
Commission on Human Rights in 2015 and 2019, and that in both instances, he received the “email
advisement from the DCPS Career Office and the mailed written determination and appeals
instructions from the DCPS Office of Security.” Compl. ¶¶ 37, 46. He states that in 2020, he
received only the email. Compl. ¶ 46–47.

                                                 3
background check had actually been conducted, Compl. ¶¶ 66–67, and that his attempts to appeal

the decision were ignored. Compl. ¶¶ 69–70.

       Plaintiff asserts in his complaint that the “alleged ‘ineligible’ findings by the DCPS Office

of Security constitute determinations under D.C. Code § 4–1501.05a that [he] presents a present

danger to children or youth,” which have harmed his reputation, stigmatized him, and precluded

him from obtaining employment in his chosen field of “educational institutions in D.C.” Compl.

¶¶ 90–93. He also complains that the allegedly false background check determinations will be

communicated to prospective employers in the District and elsewhere when he “seeks

recertification to teach in the District” in 2024 “and/or [ ] is submitted for administrative processing

by DCPS or the Office of the State Superintendent of Education for teaching positions.” Compl.

¶¶ 94–95.

       On May 20, 2022, plaintiff filed a seven count complaint in the Superior Court of the

District of Columbia. Compl. ¶¶ 102–115. Defendants removed the case to this Court on July

20, 2022, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1446. See Notice of Removal [Dkt. # 1]. Counts

One, Two, and Three allege that DCPS breached the Settlement Agreement, “including the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” by falsely claiming that plaintiff “failed” the DCPS

background checks and by not permitting him to appeal the alleged failures with respect to: the

2020 application for the position at Kelly Miller Middle School (Count One); the positions for

which he “applied but did not even interview” in 2021 (Count Two); and the 2021 application for

the position at Eliot Hine Middle School (Count Three). Compl. ¶¶ 102–107.

       Counts Four, Five, and Six allege due process violations with respect to the same positions.

In Count Four, plaintiff alleges that DCPS violated his “right to due process to protect a property

interest by failing to process his 2020 hiring for the position at Kelly Miller M.S.” according to its

                                                   4
“established, lawful procedures” and “depriving him of any opportunity to be heard.” Compl.

¶ 109. Count Five alleges that DCPS violated his “right to due process to protect a property interest

by violating or ignoring its established, lawful hiring procedures to preclude him from being

considered for the positions for which he applied in 2021, but had not yet interviewed,” without

an opportunity to be heard. Compl. ¶ 111. Count Six similarly alleges that DCPS violated

plaintiff’s “right to due process to protect a property interest by failing to process his 2021 hiring

for the position at Eliot Hine M.S.” Compl. ¶ 113. Plaintiff’s final claim contends that DCPS

violated his “right to due process to protect a liberty interest by falsely labeling him as someone

who presents a danger to children and youth, and who is ineligible to teach in D.C., and failing to

provide him an appeals process to redress that labeling.” Compl. ¶ 115.

       Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of an injunction prohibiting defendant from violating the

Settlement Agreement in the future; an order of specific performance directing that defendant

provide “retirement and other benefits to [plaintiff] as though he had been employed by DCPS”

for the 2020 and 2021 school years; and an order requiring that defendant remove from its records

any references to plaintiff’s having failed a background check in 2020 or 2021. Compl. at 20. He

also seeks punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs associated with this action, and

compensatory damages of no less than $ 6,000,000. Compl. at 20–21.

       On September 26, 2022, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a

claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Mot. The matter is fully briefed. See Pl.’s Opp. to Mot.

[Dkt. # 8] (“Opp.”); Reply Mem. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. [Dkt. # 10] (“Reply”).

                                    STANDARD OF REVIEW

       “To survive a [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

                                                  5
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In Iqbal,

the Supreme Court reiterated the two principles underlying its decision in Twombly: “First, the

tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable

to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. And “[s]econd, only a complaint that states a

plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Id. at 679, citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at

556.

       A claim is facially plausible when the pleaded factual content “allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

678. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than

a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A pleading must offer more than

“labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” id.,

quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

       In evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must “treat the complaint’s

factual allegations as true and must grant plaintiff ‘the benefit of all inferences that can be derived

from the facts alleged.’” Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

(internal citation omitted), quoting Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1979);

see also Am. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011), quoting Thomas v.

Principi, 394 F.3d 970, 972 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Therefore, when considering a motion to dismiss, a

court must construe a complaint liberally in the plaintiff’s favor. Kowal v. MCI Commc’ns Corp.,

16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Nevertheless, the court need not accept inferences drawn by

the plaintiff if those inferences are unsupported by facts alleged in the complaint, nor must the

court accept plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Id.; see also Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242

                                                  6
(D.C. Cir. 2002). In ruling upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court may

ordinarily consider only “the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached as exhibits or

incorporated by reference in the complaint, and matters about which the Court may take judicial

notice.” Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao, 226 F. Supp. 2d 191, 196 (D.D.C. 2002), citing EEOC v. St.

Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624–25 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

                                            ANALYSIS

  I.   Plaintiff fails to state a breach of contract claim.

       Counts One through Three allege that defendant breached the terms of the Settlement

Agreement, “including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” Compl. ¶¶ 102–107.

To prevail on a breach of contract claim, “a party must establish (1) a valid contract between the

parties; (2) an obligation or duty arising out of the contract; (3) a breach of that duty; and

(4) damages caused by breach.” Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, 984 A.2d 181, 187 (D.C. 2009),

citing San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. United States, 877 F.2d 957, 959 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

In the District of Columbia, “every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair

dealing” that obligates the contracting parties to refrain from doing “anything which will have the

effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract.”

Sundberg v. TTR Realty, LLC, 109 A.3d 1123, 1133 (D.C. 2015) (citations omitted). To state a

claim for breach of this implied covenant, a plaintiff must allege “bad faith or conduct that is

arbitrary and capricious.” Abdelrhman v. Ackerman, 76 A.3d 883, 891–92 (D.C. 2013). Bad faith

goes beyond “mere negligence,” but may be a showing of a “lack of diligence, purposeful failure

to perform, and interference with the other party’s ability to perform.” Wright v. Howard

University, 60 A.3d 749, 754 (D.C. 2013).

                                                 7
       The parties agree that the Settlement Agreement meets the requirement of a valid contract

between the parties. But the defendant argues that the Agreement does not create an obligation or

duty for DCPS to rehire plaintiff or provide him with any rights in the hiring process. Mot. at 10.

Plaintiff does not point to any provision in the contract giving rise to those obligations or duties,

but he explains that “each breach of contract claim . . . is premised on an allegation that DCPS

falsely advised Mr. McKinney that he had failed a background check and precluded him from

appealing that alleged failure,” which, he maintains, states a claim for breach of the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Opp. at 13 (emphasis in original).

       The Court agrees with the defendant that the plain terms of the parties’ Settlement

Agreement do not create any obligation or duty for the District to rehire the plaintiff. The

Agreement states that plaintiff “shall be allowed to apply for teaching positions at DCPS starting

[sic] the 2020-2021 school year,” but not that his application would be accepted. Settlement

Agreement ¶ 4. 2 If plaintiff were rehired within one year, the Agreement further establishes rights

related to the salary and benefits he would receive, id. at ¶¶ 5–7, but none of that confers any rights

related to the hiring process or any related background checks, as plaintiff alleges.

       For those reasons, plaintiff has not alleged a breach of contract, and he has not alleged a

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing either, because the covenant is

bounded by the scope of the contract. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing “does

not require a party to waive or rewrite the terms of the contract.” Sibley v. St. Albans Sch.,

134 A.3d 789, 806 (D.C. 2016); see also C & E Services, Inc. v. Ashland Inc., 601 F. Supp. 2d

2      Plaintiff concedes this point in his procedural due process argument when he states that his
re-employment “was not itself guaranteed,” and that the Settlement Agreement contained a
contractual “right to re-apply for reemployment” – not a right to reemployment. Opp. at 6–7
(emphasis added).

                                                  8
262, 275 (D.D.C. 2009) (“the duty [of good faith and fair dealing] must arise out of a contract

between the parties. . . the duty is not a means to add new terms to the agreement”), citing Kerrigan

v. Britches of Georgetowne, Inc., 705 A.2d 624, 626–27 (D.C. 1997); Metz v. BAE Systems

Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 26, 33 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that

defendant’s alleged interference with plaintiff’s ability to seek employment with defendant’s non-

competitors could not give rise to a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair

dealing because the contract did not contain such a right). While the implied covenant of good

faith and fair dealing would obligate the defendant to refrain from doing anything which would

destroy or injure plaintiff’s right to “receive the fruits of the contract,” Sundberg, 109 A.3d 1123

at 1133, quoting Abdelrhman, 76 A.3d at 891, in this case, that would be plaintiff’s right to re-

apply for employment, not to be accepted.

       Because plaintiff has failed to state a claim for breach of contract, Counts One, Two, and

Three will be dismissed.

 II.   Plaintiff fails to state a due process claim based on a property interest.

       Counts Four through Six allege violations of plaintiff’s “right to due process to protect a

property interest” with respect to the positions he applied to in 2020 and 2021. Compl. ¶¶ 109–

113. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids the government from depriving a

person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. “The

first inquiry in every due process challenge is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a protected

interest in ‘property’ or ‘liberty.’” Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in U.S., 758 F.3d 296,

315 (D.C. Cir. 2014), quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 59 (1999). If the

answer is yes, then the Court considers “whether the procedures used by the Government in

effecting the deprivation ‘comport with due process.’” Ralls, 758 F.3d at 315.

                                                  9
       Here, plaintiff has not alleged a property interest that would satisfy the first step in the

inquiry. To establish a property interest in a benefit, “a person clearly must have more than an

abstract need or desire and more than a unilateral expectation of it.” Town of Castle Rock v.

Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 756 (2005); Roth v. King, 449 F.3d 1272, 1284 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Instead,

he must “have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S.

at 756. Such an entitlement is “created and [its] dimensions are defined by existing rules or

understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.” Bd. of Regents of State

Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577–78 (1972) (holding that assistant professor at a state university

did not have a property interest in being rehired under the Fourteenth Amendment when this was

not secured by the terms of his appointment, state statute, or university policy).

       Plaintiff claims that the District deprived him of his property interest in the teaching

positions by “failing to process his hiring” with respect to the positions he’d been offered at Kelly

Miller Middle School in 2020 and Elliot Hine Middle School in 2021, and when it failed to

consider him for other 2021 positions for which he applied in accordance with the District’s

“established, lawful procedures.” Compl. ¶¶ 109–113. But the essential property interest is

missing, because “ordinarily there is of course no ‘legitimate claim of entitlement’ . . . to be

appointed” to a particular government job. Molerio v. F.B.I., 749 F.2d 815, 823 (D.C. Cir. 1984),

citing Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, and MacFarlane v. Grasso, 696 F.2d 217, 221–22 (2d Cir. 1982)

(“Ordinarily, an applicant for government employment does not have a property interest in the

position he seeks.”); see also White v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 787 F.2d 660, 665 (D.C. Cir. 1986)

(holding that an administrative law judge applicant did not possess a protected property interest in

pursuit of that employment).

                                                 10
       To establish the existence of a property right, a plaintiff must show “‘a legitimate

expectation, based on rules (statutes or regulations) or understandings (contracts, express or

implied), that he would continue in his job.’” Piroglu v. Coleman, 25 F.3d 1098, 1104 (D.C. Cir.

1994), quoting Hall v. Ford, 856 F.2d 255, 265 (D.C. Cir. 1988). But the facts in the complaint

do not give rise to a plausible inference that plaintiff had an expectation based on DCPS rules or a

contract. While plaintiff points to the Settlement Agreement as a source of his property interest,

Opp. at 6–7, the Agreement did not bind the District to rehire him such that plaintiff had a

“legitimate claim of entitlement” to a position. 3 Moreover, even the offers extended by the two

schools, subject to further administrative processing, did not give rise to a legitimate expectation

under the due process clause. See Nat’l Treasury Emp. Union v. Reagan, 509 F. Supp. 1337, 1341

(D.D.C. 1981) (finding that offers of federal employment did not give rise to protected property

interest for due process purposes where the plaintiffs had received “mere offers of jobs which do

not rise to the level of ‘appointments’ to the federal civil service”).

       Because plaintiff has failed to allege a cognizable property interest, he cannot state a

procedural due process claim. See Roberts v. United States, 741 F.3d 152, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

3       Plaintiff compares his case to an out-of-circuit decision that held that a schoolteacher had
a legitimate claim of entitlement to remain on a hiring eligibility list after being removed, and
therefore could not be removed from that list without due process. Opp. at 7, citing Stana v. School
Dist. of City of Pittsburgh, 775 F.2d 122 (3d Cir. 1985). But in Stana, the plaintiff had met certain
requirements to remain on the eligibility list, which the school district “had created through the
policies it promulgated to implement the state statute on teacher hiring.” Stana, 775 F.2d at 126–
27. The court therefore found that remaining on the eligibility list was a “legitimate entitlement”
that plaintiff already possessed based on “both an existing policy or rule and an explicit
understanding sufficient to constitute a property interest.” Id. No such deprivation of any right
previously secured by a statute or code exists in the case at hand. And, as defendant points out,
the Third Circuit has limited Stana’s holding in the context of job applicants. See Anderson v.
Philadelphia, 845 F.2d 1216, 1220 (3d Cir. 1988) (holding that unlike the plaintiff in Stana,
plaintiffs that “were never more than applicants for employment by the City” had no claim of
entitlement to employment to establish a property interest).

                                                  11
(rejecting plaintiff’s argument that she had a “property interest in a fair evaluation process,”

because a “‘fair evaluation process’ is still a process, not a substantive interest in liberty or

property.”). Therefore, Counts Four, Five, and Six will be dismissed.

III.   Plaintiff fails to state a due process claim based on a liberty interest.

       In Count Seven, plaintiff alleges that the District deprived him of a liberty interest “by

falsely labeling him as someone who presents a danger to children and youth, and who is ineligible

to teach in D.C., and failing to provide him an appeals process to redress that labeling.” Compl.

¶ 115. The Supreme Court has recognized that there is a due process liberty interest in one’s

reputation. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 573 (“(w)here a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or

integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to

be heard are essential”) (internal citations omitted). A plaintiff may allege a reputation-based due

process violation under one of two theories: a “reputation-plus” theory or a “stigma” theory. See

O’Donnell v. Barry, 148 F.3d 1126, 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Hutchinson v. CIA, 393 F.3d 226, 231

(D.C. Cir. 2005). Plaintiff fails to state a claim under either.

       A.      Plaintiff’s claims fail under a reputation-plus theory.

       The first category of a reputation-based due process violation requires “the conjunction of

official defamation and [an] adverse employment action.” O’Donnell, 148 F.3d at 1140. “For a

defamation to give rise to a right to procedural due process, it is necessary. . . that the defamation

be accompanied by a discharge from government employment or at least a demotion in rank and

pay.” Id., citing Mosrie v. Barry, 718 F.2d 1151, 1161 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (emphasis in original).

Even if plaintiff has plausibly alleged that he was defamed by the District’s allegedly false

statements about his background checks, he fails to satisfy the second requirement: he was neither

discharged nor demoted from an employment position when the District made reference to a failed

                                                  12
background check. Rather, the allegations underlying his claims relate to his attempts to seek re-

employment with the District. Rehiring does not fall within the scope of reputation-plus claims,

which “rest[ ] on the fact that official criticism will carry much more weight if the person criticized

is at the same time demoted or fired.” O’Donnell, 148 F.3d at 1140; see also Lea v. D.C., No. CV

22-1396 (JEB), 2022 WL 3153828, at *4 (D.D.C. Aug. 8, 2022) (finding that an applicant with an

offer for a D.C. government position that was later revoked failed to establish the necessary

relationship for a reputation-plus claim). Therefore, plaintiff has not plausibly alleged deprivation

of his liberty interest under the reputation-plus theory.

       B.      Plaintiff’s claims fail under the stigma theory.

       To bring a claim under the stigma theory, a plaintiff must allege the “combination of an

adverse employment action and ‘a stigma or other disability that foreclosed [the plaintiff’s]

freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.”” O’Donnell, 148 F.3d at 1140,

quoting Roth, 408 U.S. at 573. The Court does not need to decide whether plaintiff has alleged

the necessary “adverse employment action” to implicate the stigma theory because assuming that

                                                  13
a failure to re-hire applies, 4 plaintiff’s claims still fail to meet the second requirement: he has not

alleged that he has been effectively “foreclosed” from some category of work.

       To survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiff must show that the government’s actions either

“(a) automatically exclude[] [him] from a definite range of employment opportunities. . . or

(b) broadly preclud[e] [him] from continuing in [his] chosen career.” Kartseva, 37 F.3d 1524 at

1527. If plaintiff “has merely lost one position in [his] profession but is not foreclosed from

reentering the field,” then he has not carried his burden. Kartseva, 37 F.3d at 1529. Rather, his

“ability to pursue his chosen profession” must have been “seriously affected, if not destroyed.”

O’Donnell, 148 F.3d at 1141-42, citing Kartseva, 37 F.3d at 1529.

       Plaintiff argues that the District has “‘foreclosed [him] from entering the field’ of education

in the entirety of the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.” Opp. at 11, citing id. at 1529.

However, under D.C. Circuit precedent, the fact that plaintiff currently teaches and coaches at a

public school in Maryland undermines the stigma claim. While plaintiff alleges that DCPS pays

its teachers higher salaries than he currently receives, Compl. ¶ 80, his current job “demonstrates

that the stigma he suffered cannot have been too disabling” such that his ability to pursue his

4       The District argues that this theory cannot apply to plaintiff’s claim because “[t]he
government’s relationship with an applicant for a particular job does not implicate the due process
clause’s protection of liberty interests.” White v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 787 F.2d 660, 665 (D.C. Cir.
1986). But White focused on a particular job, and did not involve a reputation-based due process
violation; indeed, the Court of Appeals went on to note that plaintiff, an administrative law judge
applicant, had not been debarred from all employment with the government, “a circumstance that
in our day might involve his constitutionally protected liberty interests.” Id.; see also Kartseva v.
Dep’t. of State, 37 F.3d 1524, 1527 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that State Department’s denial of
government contractor’s security clearance “might have changed [her] status and thus implicated
a liberty interest”); Lea, 2022 WL 3153828 at *5 (finding that job applicant alleged an adverse
government action – the refusal to hire her due to her “unsuitability” determination – for purposes
of the stigma theory because “the Circuit has repeatedly narrowed the category of ‘adverse
employment actions’ in the reputation-plus context without explicitly doing the same in the stigma-
plus context.”)

                                                  14
chosen profession has been “seriously affected, if not destroyed.” O’Donnell, 148 F.3d at 1141–

42 (holding that a former Deputy Chief of Police in the District of Columbia did not suffer stigma

given that he had obtained employment as the police chief in a small town in Maryland, even if he

had “intended to seek out a job as chief of police of a large city”). While the Court is sympathetic

to plaintiff’s stated concerns that the allegedly “false, adverse information will be disclosed

publicly, including to the State of Maryland, as part of his mandatory DC teaching certificate

renewal process,” Opp. at 10, these hypothetical and speculative harms are insufficient to give rise

to a plausible inference that the plaintiff has been so broadly precluded from teaching that his right

to liberty has been infringed.

       Because plaintiff has failed to allege a reputation-based due process violation under either

a reputation-plus or stigma theory, the Court will dismiss Count Seven.

                                          CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, the Court will GRANT defendant’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 7]

on all counts. A separate order will issue.

                                                      AMY BERMAN JACKSON
                                                      United States District Judge

DATE: January 31, 2024

                                                 15