Holman v. Williams

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a newspaper article published the day after plaintiff was fired could cause a “stigma or disability” where it “effectively put a significant roadblock in [plaintiff’s] ability to obtain other employment”
• holding that statements that a plaintiff failed to interact with his staff and that his office was in “total chaos” do not “rise to the level of constitutional harm” because they relate to his job performance
• finding that “the plaintiff’s claims of false light, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress [were] preempted” by the CMPA
• citing, inter alia, Stockard v. Moss, 706 A.2d 561, 567 (D.C.1997) (“[T]he CMPA provides the exclusive remedy for claims falling within its ambit”)
• suggesting that the CMPA applies to at-will employees except as to “pre-termination procedural protections” and wrongful termination claims “because the statute offers no administrative recourse to at-will employees for claims related to their termination.”
• explaining that the official action must be one that “has the effect of seriously affecting, if not destroying, a plaintiffs ability to pursue his chosen profession, or substantially reducing the value of [his] human capital” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).