McDonald v. Wise, No. 13-1211 (10th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseFormer mayoral appointee, Wayne McDonald, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Colorado state law after he was terminated from his position with the City of Denver based on a complaint by Officer Leslie Wise that he had sexually harassed her. He sued the Mayor of Denver, the Mayor’s press secretary, and the City and County of Denver for due process violations, breach of contract, and unlawful disclosure of confidential information under the Colorado Open Records Act. He sued Wise for defamation. The district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). After review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. McDonald was an at-will employee serving at the pleasure of the Mayor and had no property interest in his continued employment, thus, the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections were not therefore implicated when he was terminated, and the district court was correct in dismissing this claim. The district court concluded that McDonald failed to plead facts sufficient to satisfy "Workman’s" falsity prong: "[e]ven if the Mayor only stated that Mr. McDonald was fired because of allegations of serious misconduct, his termination of Mr. McDonald due to the allegations gives the false impression that Mr. McDonald did in fact commit serious misconduct. Mr. McDonald has been unable to find employment because of the media reports of his misconduct. Given that the statements here were made publically, Mr. McDonald has sufficiently pled a deprivation of his liberty interest." The Court found that that the unemployment compensation hearing McDonald received was not an adequate substitute for the process the City owed him: McDonald was able to explain himself at the unemployment compensation hearing, that fact alone did not establish it was a name-clearing hearing. McDonald pled sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that he was deprived of a liberty interest in his good name and reputation without due process when the City made public the fact that he was terminated for serious misconduct. Thus, the Mayor was not entitled to qualified immunity. The City is therefore liable if the Mayor deprived McDonald of his liberty interest without due process. There was a reasonable inference from Wise’s behavior following the alleged sexual harassment that she did not believe McDonald had sexually harassed her. An inference and alleged awareness of falsity, coupled with the fact that Wise made the statement to their employer, were sufficient to provide a reasonable inference that Wise acted with reckless disregard of the consequences of her conduct. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred when it held that Wise was immune from liability at this early stage of the proceedings and that McDonald failed to state a viable claim for defamation. The Court reversed the district court’s order dismissing the case against Wise and remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.