Opinion ID: 2977346
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Due-Process Liberty Claim

Text: Gunasekera also appeals the dismissal of his claim that Irwin and Krendl deprived him of his liberty without due process of law. In order to prevail at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, Gunasekera must allege that he had a protected liberty interest and that he was deprived of this interest without due process of law. The first part of this test is No. 07-4303 Gunasekera v. Irwin et al. Page 10 not at issue, as on appeal Irwin and Krendl concede that Gunasekera “possesses a protected liberty interest.” Irwin & Krendl Br. at 4. Given this concession, we do not need to apply our five-factor test used to decide whether someone is entitled to a nameclearing hearing due to a deprivation of his or her liberty interest.3 See Quinn v. Shirey, 293 F.3d 315, 320 (6th Cir.) (describing five factor test), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1019 (2002). The fact that Gunasekera requested a name-clearing hearing as required by this circuit is not contested. Id. at 322. The dispute boils down to what process is due and whether such a hearing must be public.4 We have held that “a name-clearing hearing need only provide an opportunity to clear one’s name and need not comply with formal procedures to be valid.” Chilingirian v. Boris, 882 F.2d 200, 206 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Feterle v. Chowdhury, 148 F. App’x 524, 531-32 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished opinion). However, we have yet to address whether a name-clearing hearing must include a public opportunity clear one’s name.5 To decide whether due process demands a public name-clearing opportunity, we apply the standard set by the Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). This three-part balancing test requires us to consider the following elements: 3 Even if Irwin and Krendl had contested the district court’s assumption that Gunasekera has a liberty interest, Gunasekera has sufficiently alleged a protected liberty interest. The accusations regarding plagiarism were connected to his suspension (and as discussed above, Gunasekera’s suspension deprived him of benefits and pay); the University alleged more than simple incompetence; the allegations were public; Gunasekera claims that the statements were false; and the University called a press conference to publicize its charges. See Quinn v. Shirey, 293 F.3d 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2002). 4 There is some dispute as to whether the hearing offered by the University was public or not. The University asserted, and the district court agreed, that the proposed hearing was public because Gunasekera would have been allowed to bring anyone, including members of the press, to his hearing. Gunasekera, 517 F. Supp. 2d at 1014 & n.9. Gunasekera counters that the hearing offered was not public because the University specifically denied his request for a hearing publicized in the same way the Meyer/Bloemer report had been. Id. However, this dispute is contained in documents outside the pleadings which we cannot properly consider on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Taking the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to Gunasekera, we assume that he was not offered a public opportunity to clear his name. 5 In Flaim, we held that a university disciplinary hearing need not be public. 418 F.3d at 635. Although both Flaim and this case involve universities, a disciplinary hearing is very different from a name-clearing hearing. A name-clearing hearing is not a venue for an employer to determine the proper punishment, but rather an opportunity for an individual to confront a public stigma that has already been imposed by an employer. However, as we discuss below, the concerns cited in Flaim may shape the nature of the publicity required in connection with a name-clearing hearing. No. 07-4303 Gunasekera v. Irwin et al. Page 11 “(1) the nature of the private interest affected—that is, the seriousness of the charge and potential sanctions, (2) the danger of error and the benefit of additional or alternate procedures, and (3) the public or governmental burden were additional procedures mandated.” Flaim, 418 F.3d at 635 (describing test instituted by Supreme Court in Mathews). Considering the first prong of this test, we believe that it is clear that where, as here, the employer has inflicted a public stigma on an employee, the only way that an employee can clear his name of the public stigma is through publicity. The injury of which Gunasekera complains is the fact that he was publicly associated with and perhaps partially blamed for a plagiarism scandal. As to the second prong of Mathews, publicity adds a significant benefit to the hearing, and without publicity the hearing cannot perform its name-clearing function. A name-clearing hearing with no public component would not address this harm because it would not alert members of the public who read the first report that Gunasekera challenged the allegations. Similarly, if Gunasekera’s name was cleared at an unpublicized hearing, members of the public who had seen only the stories accusing him would not know that this stigma was undeserved. The Second Circuit has held that an unpublicized, internal name-clearing hearing was insufficient because of the “substantial risk that the stigma against plaintiff would remain after such hearing.” Patterson v. City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322, 337 (2nd Cir. 2004). Following this conclusion, the Second Circuit held that: “Requiring the [employer] to address such risk by offering plaintiff the opportunity to publicly refute the charges made against him or publicising his refutations itself, does not place an undue burden upon the government’s interest in terminating [employees] who either are not performing to expected standards or are behaving in an unacceptable fashion.” Id. We agree with the Second Circuit that requiring that name-clearing hearings involve some form of publicity would not necessarily put an undue burden on the government. In order to determine what the name-clearing hearing should entail and what its limits might be in each case, courts should again turn to the Mathews balancing test described above. By applying this test to the facts of the case before it, a court can tailor a name-clearing hearing which allows the employee to challenge directly any public stigma while also accounting for any legitimate concerns of the employer. In this case, No. 07-4303 Gunasekera v. Irwin et al. Page 12 Gunasekera has a strong interest in his academic reputation. Requiring that a nameclearing hearing include a public component may be the only way to make such a hearing effective. If a name-clearing hearing has no public component, it may not be able to serve its function of curing the public stigma that necessitated the hearing. With respect to the third prong, government interests will shape the nature of the publicity required. For example, privacy concerns within the university setting might dictate the form of the publicity. Cf. Flaim, 418 F.3d at 637 n.2 (noting that the publicity attending a “full-dress judicial hearing” “might be detrimental to the college’s educational atmosphere”). Though we have few facts before us on this Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we observe that it is possible that concerns for the privacy of students implicated in plagiarism would impact the precise nature of the publicity required. We hold that Gunasekera has sufficiently alleged that he was deprived of a protected liberty interest without due process of law to withstand this Rule 12(b)(6) motion. In order to satisfy due process, the university is required to offer Gunasekera a name-clearing hearing that is adequately publicized to address the stigma the university inflicted on him. The exact nature of that publicity depends on a fact-intensive review of the circumstances attending his case, and we leave to the district court the initial determination regarding the exact parameters of the name-clearing hearing due to Gunasekera.