heard whatever the county said and got whatever was in the file and hired him as a cop so i must be missing some part of your theory of the case that looks like an element of it just isn't there right this case is about exactly what it what under what circumstances an employer and employee a probationary employee is entitled to  hypothetical suppose that the boss fired the guy and said i'm firing you because you're in your child molester and you beat people up and you're an awful person in every conceivable way and that's why i'm firing you and the guy says i want to hear it none of these things are true this is really unfair and it is will soon for the hypo everything here is false it's just all m and he's denied a hearing and then in his personnel file under reason for discharge the employer writes reduction in funds available probationary employee last hired first fired he was a wonderful employee a fine person excellent in every way that when subsequent employers inquire that's what they find out i was just first rate wonderful they don't find out any of this bad stuff at that was alleged and was false and that hearing was denied about it seems to me that you would have no claim then for violation of the liberty interest by denial of a name clearing hearing because there'd be no  stigmatizing discharge my right on that i would agree with that with one minor reservation under those under that particular hypothetical and that that is a very apt unsatisfactory performance in that case absolutely no right to a liberty interest hearing i totally agree however if the personnel files did say first rate employee i recommend them highly terrific performance if the stigmatizing charge is out there in the public where prospective employers can find them obviously if it was purely a private statement from the employer to the employee that's not put in writing not made available to t the criminal charges and well now on a criminal charge i don't get that this folly of law on name clearing hearings all have to do with the reason for discharge  am unaware of any case that says that a person is entitled to some sort of hearing some sort of due process notice that an opportunity to be heard before they are charged in a criminal case and frankly i cannot imagine any such principle because most criminal charges many have to be made before there is a notice and a hearing in order to apprehend the person the noticed and hearing comes after in a criminal charge once you get charged then you can defend yourself in this case i don't think it even got charged i think it washed out of the grand jury did well in their hearing bucklebury hearing we do not argue that there was and is a right to a hearing before being charged criminally we do argue that there is a right to liberty interest hearing when the discharge is roughly contemporaneous with criminal charges which current reason for termination criminal charges are not in his personnel file is the reason for terminations and they're not told to subsequent employers i suppose they can find it by searching court records or databases  but then they all they find out is that it was dismissed at the preliminary hearing that the fact of the matter is white county hired the guy is a cop  that the prospect of employer reading the personnel file in the background file reads entirely neutral information this judge is going probation on satisfactory performance and the story and then checks the public or it is public record and i don't understand the i don't care what's the matter i mean they thought that this particular guard had beaten up a shackled prisoner who had a smart mouth on hand so they charge from criminal an entirely proper and appropriate thing to do with a crime to beat up a prisoner because he has a shackled prisoner because he has a smart mouth at the guy gets due process in the criminal proceeding and in fact he prevails  gets its message at the earliest possible stage the preliminary hearing at they also didn't want to working there anymore he's a probationary employee so they can he's at will and they can fire him for any reason or no reason whether it's  proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he beat up a prisoner or not so they fire him but they don't put anything stigmatizing in his personnel record and they don't give out a stigmatizing reference so he doesn't need to clear his name personal injury case going and there's also a criminal case and that you pretty much have to elect whether to sacrifice your person you feel like a sir i have sacrificed your interest in your criminal defen that the employing would be required to do it and in such a labor the interest here is to point to the public record or point to something that would go to a prospective employer and if the employee can do profession has prepared themselves to work in that profession and finds themself facing a charge that will guard vary from pretty much shoplifting and i get washed out at the earliest stage walk or meet state on my record is terminations found proper the court had to remand the case for consideration of whether damages are appropriate for the period of time in which his liberty interest was the price ok we're way over time