Dargan v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals

── Dargan v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals ── Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 24-CV-1001 HAROLD DARGAN, APPELLANT, V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE APPEALS, et al., APPELLEES. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2023-CAB-007818) (Jonathan H. Pittman, Judge) (Argued February 11, 2026 Decided April 17, 2026 ∗) Frederic W. Schwartz, Jr. for appellant. Tessa Gellerson, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Brian L. Schwalb, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Caroline S. Van Zile, Solicitor General, Ashwin P. Phatak, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, and Carl Schifferle, Deputy Solicitor General, were on the brief, for appellees. Before MCLEESE, DEAHL, and SHANKER, Associate Judges. SHANKER, Associate Judge: The District of Columbia Fire and Emergency ∗ The decision in this case was originally issued as an unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Judgment. It is now being published upon the court’s grant of a motion to publish filed by appellee District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department.  2 Medical Services Department (FEMS) terminated appellant Harold Dargan in 2012 because he failed to maintain the necessary certification required of all emergency medical services providers in the District. Mr. Dargan timely challenged his termination in 2013, appealing to the D.C. Office of Employee Appeals (OEA), which affirmed his termination in 2015. The Superior Court affirmed this decision in 2017, and this court vacated and remanded in 2019. On remand, the OEA ultimately affirmed Mr. Dargan’s termination in 2023, as did the Superior Court in 2024. Mr. Dargan has again appealed, arguing that his termination was improper because he was denied procedural due process and he was not given timely notice of his termination as required under D.C. Code § 5-1031(a). We affirm. I. Background A. Factual Background In 2011, Mr. Dargan worked for FEMS as a Basic Paramedic. Pursuant to District policy, individuals must be certified by the D.C. Department of Health (DOH) and the National Registry of EMTs (NREMT) to provide emergency medical services. During the relevant time, the District recognized four levels of EMT certification: (1) EMT-Basic; (2) EMT-Advanced; (3) EMT-Intermediate (also referred to as EMT-I/99); and (4) EMT-Paramedic. Each certification qualified providers to engage in a different scope of practice: EMT-Basic and EMT-Advanced  3 providers were qualified to administer only basic life support services, while EMT-Intermediate and EMT-Paramedic providers were qualified to administer advanced life support services, including intubating, administering medications, starting IVs, and shocking the heart. Prior to his termination, Mr. Dargan was certified as an EMT-Intermediate. On June 14, 2011, Mr. Dargan and his unit responded to a call regarding an unconscious woman. Mr. Dargan was unable to resuscitate her and she died. According to FEMS, Mr. Dargan “failed in his paramedic duties” because he “deviated from standard practice” in his resuscitation effort by neglecting to “adequately prepare all necessary equipment” and leaving the patient’s “airway unattended” while retrieving additional equipment. Mr. Dargan was immediately removed from the field and re