## Facts

- The United States Coast Guard ran the “Deepwater” acquisition effort to modernize its fleet and contracted with SFA, Inc. and Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. on the project.
- Mohawk Information Systems and Consulting, Inc. (MISC) was a subcontractor to SFA. Adam Shirvinski entered a private, at-will consulting agreement with MISC in March 2008 to work on the Deepwater project; he was not a federal employee and had no contract with the Coast Guard.
- Shirvinski’s working relationship with Coast Guard personnel and Booz Allen personnel was tense.
- In August 2008, Coast Guard employee Stephen Hoshowsky sent an internal email to Coast Guard officials stating that Shirvinski had repeatedly overstated his role on the project and failed to identify himself as a contractor.
- Coast Guard officials asked SFA to take corrective action concerning Shirvinski. SFA directed MISC to terminate Shirvinski’s consulting agreement, and MISC did so.
- Shirvinski sued in federal court asserting state-law tort theories (including defamation-related theories) against multiple defendants. The only claim initially asserted against the Coast Guard was a defamation claim seeking declaratory relief.
- The district court dismissed claims against Hoshowsky and SFA’s successor, and dismissed the Coast Guard claim for lack of jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the FTCA does not provide jurisdiction for common-law tort suits seeking only equitable relief.
- Shirvinski then amended his complaint to assert (1) a Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim against the Coast Guard based on the alleged request that he be removed from the project coupled with allegedly defamatory accusations, and (2) state-law civil conspiracy and tortious interference claims against Booz Allen based on allegations that a Booz Allen employee helped draft Hoshowsky’s email.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Coast Guard and Booz Allen. Shirvinski appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Coast Guard’s alleged defamatory statements and request that a contractor take action against an at-will subcontractor consultant deprived the consultant of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest under the Fifth Amendment, triggering procedural due process protections.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record supported Shirvinski’s state-law claims against Booz Allen for civil conspiracy and tortious interference based on alleged participation in drafting the Coast Guard employee’s email.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Coast Guard on Shirvinski’s procedural due process claim.
- The court held Shirvinski failed to show deprivation of a protected property interest because his consulting relationship was at-will and existed only through a private subcontracting arrangement, not government employment or a direct contractual entitlement with the Coast Guard.
- The court also held Shirvinski failed to show a protected liberty interest under a defamation-based “stigma-plus” theory because reputational harm tied to the loss of a private at-will consulting role—without a government action changing a recognized legal status such as direct government employment or a formal exclusion from contracting—did not satisfy the “plus” requirement.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Booz Allen, agreeing that the record did not supply evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Booz Allen participated in a conspiracy or intentionally procured the termination of Shirvinski’s contract by helping draft the email.

## Legal Principles

- Procedural due process applies only when the government deprives a person of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest.
- An at-will relationship generally does not create a protected property interest because it does not amount to a guaranteed entitlement to continued work.
- Injury to reputation, by itself, does not constitute a protected liberty interest; a plaintiff must show “stigma plus”—reputational harm plus a government-caused change in a recognized legal status or right.
- A government complaint or request made within a contracting chain, where termination is carried out by a private entity under an at-will agreement, does not by itself establish the required deprivation of a protected interest.
- Civil conspiracy and tortious interference claims require evidence of concerted action or intentional procurement of a breach/termination; unsupported assertions are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that Shirvinski, an at-will consultant engaged through a subcontractor on a Coast Guard project, failed to show that the Coast Guard’s internal criticism and request for corrective action deprived him of a protected liberty or property interest under the Fifth Amendment, and it also affirmed summary judgment for Booz Allen because the record did not support claims that Booz Allen conspired or interfered with his consulting agreement.


Shirvinski v. United States Coast Guard, 673 F.3d 308 (2012)