of “Defendant’s practice of denying employees an impartial review of discipline actions and Plaintiffs independent acts of retaliation.” See Am. Compl. at ¶ 83. Mr. Black does not allege that his reassignment constitutes a demotion in rank or salary. Absent any allegation of demotion, Mr. Black’s claim of pure reputational damage fails as a matter of law because such claims are not protected by the due process clause. Coleman v. Napolitano, 65 F.Supp.3d 99, 107 (D.D.C.2014) (“[C]ourts have routinely rejected claims that a mere reassignment or change of duties, without a corresponding reduction in rank or pay, amounts to a divestment of a property interest.”) (citations omitted); see also New Vision Photography Program, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 54 F.Supp.3d 12, 31 (D.D.C.2014) (<HOLDING>). Beyond alleged reputational damage, the
holding that an attorneys negligence alone does not qualify for such relief holding that termite damage does not fall within the meaning of property damage in the policy because the alleged misrepresentations did not cause the damage the termites did holding that a period of paid leave does not qualify as a suspension holding that purely reputational damage does not qualify for dueprocess protection holding negligence on the part of the attorney does not qualify for such relief