U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Finds that Member and Officer of United States Court Security Officers Had a Property Right in Continued Employment as a Court Security Officer, Sets Aside U.S. Marshals Service’s Termination Decision.

June 27, 2018

On June 15, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Seibel, J.) granted partial summary judgment to United States Court Security Officers member and officer Daniel Hauschild in his suit challenging pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act his termination by the U.S. Marshals Service.  In her decision, Judge Cathy Seibel found that Hauschild had, by virtue of the collective bargaining agreement between labor union United States Court Security Officers and federal contractor Akal Security, Inc., a property right in continued employment as a Court Security Officer, even though the CBA carved out government-directed removals from the contractual grievance and arbitration process.  Judge Seibel also found that the “process” the Marshals Service afforded Hauschild in connection with his termination was constitutionally deficient as it did not adequately respect his property interest in his job.  Accordingly, she set aside the Marshals Service’s decision to terminate Hauschild.

The Court’s decision is available here.

Former Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP partner Thomas N. Ciantra and associate Kate M. Swearengen represented Hauschild.