proximate cause the basic facts of this case are that in two thousand and fifteen mr mcmillan received a notice from the wisconsin department of children families revoking her license to own and operate a child care center on the basis that jo with malaki county informed the department of children and families the milwaukee county had made a substantiated finding that she had neglected and financially exploited for adult disabled daughter  investigating that claim as mcmillan learned that in twenty twelve that list ryan cited said a communication to her than a private employer iris informing iris of the same fact that an join her eyes time with milwaukee county made a substantiated finding that miss mcmillan and neglected and financially exploited or disabled adult sister miss mcmillan alleges in this case that she was fired from iris in two thousand and twelve because of that greens as a pharmacy technician because that finding the supported up through the chain through the state of wisconsin department of safety and professional services in this case although  the parties agree that no hearing was ever provided to miss mcmillan the defense has i guess denied that there was notice provided but that's our allegation this case comes to the court and i'm on a twelve c motion or allegation is that miss mcmillan was never provided with any notice or a hearing or any opportunity to challenge the substantiated finding i can't stress enough that this not just the plain finding this is of sistan cheated finding which gives the false impression that she in fact had some process that she simply did not have where you know you use ranged you know she's spreading and what you want to call it sippers something you know she's bringing up a lot of bad stuff but it seems what real injury here is the inability to get the license the you can with the laces and that's with the department showed services ritter's go well there are three injuries that were there were a ledger and we certainly agree with that but the main thing is that the government cannot interfere with a private employer for arbitrary reasons without providing any due process whatsoever which is what has happened in this case and we cited f t c recently mallon for that proposition there force other cases cited in there such as rain versus mcelroy which is that three sixty us for seventy four nine hundred fifty nine and that's really at the heart of this case which is that and i should point out that the case law is not one hundred percent clear on this point both macro and mail and framing as both a property interests an liberty interest even though the tests laid out by this court are different i should say the standard for a property interest case this court has has never held that you must lose your job in order to pursue that type of claim however for the liberty interest portion they have you have held that you actually have to be locked out of an industry and so to the point of the license there's no question that revoking that license by operation of wisconsin law resulted in her inability not only to own and operate that child care center but even work or contract in that industry whatsoever and the allegation in the complaint is that miss rhinestone made that made those claims apartment department or the family specifically for those reasons the exact same thing happened with and twelve with her employer and iris she contacted iris directly they do admit that in their answer for that express purpose they don't that that part but that they contacted iris but that's the only possible reason for why she will make that communication with iris to cause that firing and that's what happened and although the operation of the scots and law miss mcmillan did not lose her ability to work with at risk adults as a practical matter she did no reasonable employer is going to hire an employee that has  finding of neglecting and financially exploiting folks under a government program which is what waukesha county did and in this case the discourse seem to struggle with the issue of proximate  cause the issue here is mystic bones claim is that she lost her license and lost her job and was suspended without pay because of her publication of these communications the district court saying that we have to sue the employer or sue the department of children and families simply has never been the law and it should not be the law today and as a practical matter the department of children families does not determine whether the finding was made with or without due process or even whether the finding is accurate or not all they determine is is there a finding yes or no and that is the statement by mr ryan s the other point i'd like to like to make here is there's misreads time does make the argument that we have to identify some sort of under independent source of law as it relates to the private employers and that just simply isn't true  based upon the reasoning of f d i c versus malony and even cases before that and i want to make this point crystal clear which is a duty that a private employer may owe an employee is separate from duty that the government employs i guess an easier way to say it is at will employment by parties to an employment relationship does not mean at the will of third parties right so the obligation for the government to provide due process and  not interfere with a private employment relationship without providing that process whether it's pretty or post in this case we have neither is separate we don't have to prove and certainly f b i f d i c personell it doesn't doesn't make that claim that she was not an at will employee or that she had a contract or that she had some sort of other independent source in order to to maintain that claim i also think throughout the district court's decision the district court i think constitutional violation a plaintiff can sue for that constitutional violation even if there aren't any damages although we certainly believe that we have properly pleaded a claim for damages both under the property interests of interfering with private employment course there are many background facts that the district court in this court cannot consider even so whereas here are the facts which have been plaid establish an airtight defense for joanna ryan stein and the watch county the district court properly dismissed case and its decision should be affirmed i'd like to address two main points first the property interest and then the liberty interest in the standards that the district court applied in that this horseshit apply estimates mcmillan's property interest claim she specifically concedes that d c if the department of children and families of the state of wisconsin revoked her child care license she concedes that iris a wisconsin state of wisconsin agenc terminated her employment and she concedes that she was suspended by her private employer and individual pursuing relief in a section nine hundred eighty three action must establish that the defendant was personally a lot personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right the facts pled along with the a political law do not show that ms ryan stein a milwaukee county adult protective services investigator had any authority to revoke the state of wisconsin child care center license in his mcmillan nor did they show that ms ryan stein had any authority to terminate the employment of miss macmillan with the state of wisconsin agency or that ms ryan sign had any authority to suspend ms mcmillan's employment with her private employer  extent that there are no set of facts which would provide mr mcmillan with a viable scars of action for property interest against this rance time there likewise is no basis for a more now claim against the county of milwaukee w information that she did provide both to the department of children and families and to iris because those were exceptions to the confidentiality rules that an investigator like ms ryan sign is bound by when she is ryan stein is an employee of milwaukee county not the state ok so what what ms rimes sign is claiming is that her employment through the state agency iris working with her disabled sister was terminated by iris not by miss rhinestone but by iris itself because of the information that ms frankenstein legitimately provided pursuant to the statute under which she operated to would would you those are two entities both functioning through the state of wisconsin and they would be the ones who would be responsible for the for providing the due process prior to any adverse action either for her  for me to actually speak to what she's entitled to do have through their day from army has no privity to my knowledge and i don't know that she has retained her license from the department of children and famil so i don't know but again this this brings up this issue she didn't sue the state of wisconsin she didn't challenge their process early one state of wisconsin controls with regard to those two exactly and in fact the state of wisconsin mcmillan's liberty interest claims the allegations of her complaints reveal that the information she claims affected her good name reputation honor and integrity was not publicly disclosed which is the point i was making before it was disseminated by ms ryan stein in a confidential manner consistent with the terms of the law for disclosure and that is chapter fifty five of the wisconsin statute which also requires that the recipients of that information whether it be the c f or iris for any other entity that is allowed to have that information that those recipients must also maintain the confidence confidentiality of that information and that's similar to the case the pulse of case which this court decided in that there is well it's stigmatizing the standard the standard that the district court eventually  applied saying that it wasn't clear in fact that ms the millon sufficiently played an occupational liberty interest claim but construing her allegations liberally the district court applied the three point test which requires that an individual like miss mcmillan must show that she was stigmatized stigmatized by the defendant's conduct that this stigmatizing information was publicly disclosed and that she suffered a tangible loss of other employment opportunities in this case i think that the most significant issue is the second prong of that test which is the public disclosure element it's specifically quote requires that the defendant actually disseminate the sigma comments in a way that would reach potential future employers in the community or the community at large and the facts played by ms mcmillan do not show that ms rhinestone community communicated those facts to anyone other than those who would have been authorized to access them and act on them under wisconsin law the pelco vs shelton case was the one i was referring to and that is a case where an individual sheriff's deputy of the sued the both the county and the city after the city conducted an investigation into some actions he sued the city but this court said that in fact essentially we have to take the allegations as the plaintiff has stated them as ms mcmillan has stated them but to the extent that iris employed ms mcmillan to provide services to her disabled sister whom which a complaint had been made that iris itself may have been involved in the investigation and could actually draw its own conclusions from the information provided the one thing that's important i think to to note is there as chapter fifty five of the wisconsin statutes provides there are sort of levels of records there's a a record just that is a statistical record and then there are records that consist of the investigative file the investigative file can be provided to an entity like d c i have to an entity like iris to the extent they need that information but it's not a conclusion necessarily of a protective services investigator like ms ryan stein that is provided it is the actual file so those entities whether it's d c s where it's whether it's iris whether it's somebody else a guardian or something like that can look at the information and draw their own conclusions as to whether or not it's supported a decision to substantiate an individual for any kind of abuse neglect or financial exploitation we do see a cancer relations very it did it also told her that she could appeal that decision she knew that she did not do that so you let me be clear a mistake known as forever barred from being in the child care industry or having a license under wisconsin statue forty eight point six eighty five four i am a three because there is a finding of neglect and financial exploitation against her now if you look at the facts of the complaint which the court has to take as true this alleged finding was made into in two thousand and twelve and we know that her license wasn't pulled into two thousand and fifteen and the reason for that is because there isn't actually to find it so it's important to understand that what we're complaining about are rhinestones statements to iris walgreen's and the department of children and families now let me also be clear on on this particular point which is iris iris is a wisconsin state agency but the agency that miss mcmillan worked for is a private employer it's iris f s a if you look at the at the complaint so it is a different it's a different entity as it relates to some other questions about you know does she appeal the finding what i would prefer the courts who is the bill of costs in this case for transcripts of over two thousand dollars keep in mind this was a twelve c motion where there was very little opportunity to do any discovery there was actually an appeal by this pick mill and there was also a companion case by her mother if you read the complaint as a whole you'll see that really miss mcmillan is getting caught up in a conspiracy against her mother and in the companion case involving this mix which basically gives rise to this case you have all this testimony by miss rand's time which is how we get this case now those facts are not in our complaints of the court can't use it but it is very frustrating to be told that we should have appealed the decision with the c f when in fact we have a decision from d c of telling us that d c up doesn't have the the jurisdiction to hear the constitutional question of due process