THE HOSPITALS VOLUNTARY SERVICES. THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS ALSO NOTED THAT MUTUALLY EXPLICIT UNDERSTANDINGS CAN CREATE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT BY MEANS OF IMPLIED CONTRACT. 728 F.2D AT 430-31. SEE ALSO BISHOP V. WOOD, 426 U.S. 341 (1976).
AS YOU CAN SEE, AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTE ALONE, CAN NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE DIRECTOR OR OTHER EMPLOYEES MIGHT INVOLVE PROPERTY INTEREST. RATHER SUCH MUST BE DETERMINED BASED UPON THE FACTS PRESENT AS WELL.
THE SAME IS TRUE IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF SUCH EMPLOYEES WOULD AFFECT AN EMPLOYEE'S LIBERTY INTEREST. AS YOU KNOW, A PERSON WHOSE LIBERTY INTEREST IS AFFECTING BY DISCHARGES IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING PRIOR TO TERMINATION. SEE CORBITT V. ANDERSON, 778 F.2D 1471 (10TH CIR. 1985). THERE A SUGGESTION BY THE DIRECTOR OF NONPROFIT COUNSELING SERVICE THAT A PSYCHOLOGIST WAS NOT PROFESSIONALLY QUALIFIED WAS FOUND TO BE A STATEMENT THAT FORECLOSES FREEDOM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OTHER EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES. THUS THE STATEMENT WAS HELD TO AFFECT THE EMPLOYEE'S LIBERTY INTEREST.
FOR LIBERTY INTEREST TO ATTACH, THERE MUST BE A PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE REASONS FOR DISCHARGE. CAMPOSE V. GUILLOTT, 743 F.2D 1123 (8TH CIR. 1984). THERE, THE COURT HELD THAT WHERE THE TERMINATED POLICE CHIEF HIMSELF INSISTED THAT THE HEARING ON CHARGES AGAINST HIM REMAIN PUBLIC, AFTER THE CITY MADE STRENUOUS EFFORTS TO KEEP THE DISCHARGE PRIVATE, NO DUE PROCESS VIOLATION OCCURRED. NORMALLY, TO EFFECT LIBERTY INTEREST, THE STIGMATIZING STATEMENT MUST CALL INTO QUESTION THE EMPLOYEE'S NAME, REPUTATION, OR INTEGRITY. IN BAILEY V. KIRK, 777 F.2D 567, 572-73 (10TH CIR. 1985), THE COURT HELD THAT THE ALLEGATION THAT A POLICE CHIEF FAILED TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION OF A POLICE OFFICER TO THE SATISFACTION OF SUPERIORS DID NOT AFFECT THE EMPLOYEE'S LIBERTY INTEREST, SINCE IT DID NOT CALL HIS NAME, REPUTATION OR INTEGRITY INTO QUESTION.
IN MARTIN V. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 434, OSAGE COUNTY, 728 F.2D 453, 455-56 (10TH CIR. 1984) THE COURT HELD THAT THE STATEMENT BY THE SCHOOL BOARD THAT NON-RENEWAL WAS BASED ON OCCURRENCES THIS YEAR AND CONTINUANCE OF PREVIOUS CONCERNS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO AFFECT THE PRINCIPLE'S LIBERTY INTEREST. SO HOLDING THE COURT NOTED THAT PROOF THAT HIS TERMINATION HAS MADE HIM LESS ATTRACTIVE TO POTENTIAL EMPLOYEES IS NOT ENOUGH. LIBERTY INTEREST IS IMPLICATED ONLY WHEN AN EMPLOYEE'S ABILITY TO OBTAIN OTHER EMPLOYMENT IS DAMAGED. 728 F.2D 455-56. AS YOU CAN SEE, WHETHER LIBERTY INTEREST ARE AFFECTED BY AN EMPLOYEES TERMINATION, WILL DEPEND IN LARGE MEASURE ON THE REASONS FOR TERMINATION, AND THE PUBLIC DISSEMINATION AND ARTICULATION OF SUCH REASONS. ACCORDINGLY, WHETHER A TERMINATION OF A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE WOULD AFFECT -AN EMPLOYEE'S LIBERTY INTEREST IS A QUESTION OF FACT, WHICH, OF COURSE, MAY NOT BE ANSWERED IN AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION.
WHILE WE COULD NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IN A ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION, WE HAVE PROVIDED THE ABOVE TO AID YOU IN DETERMINING WHETHER PROPERTY OR LIBERTY INTEREST MAY BE PRESENT IN YOUR PARTICULAR SITUATION. IN MAKING SUCH A DETERMINATION, I