Opinion ID: 4190197
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Name-Clearing Hearings

Text: The officers maintain that the two name-clearing hearings—the criminal trial and arbitration—were insufficient to guarantee that they received due process. With respect to the criminal trial, they make both substantive and temporal arguments about its inadequacy: substantively, the criminal trial itself was an incomplete remedy because the public understands that a “not guilty” verdict does not necessarily mean that the court found that the defendant in the criminal action was actually innocent, appellants’ br. at 31, and temporally, the trial itself could not have cleared all the stigma because the stigmatizing press conference statements were republished after the trial. Id. at 37. The city defendants respond that the officers cannot base a continuing stigma claim on statements that were not contemporaneous with the deprivation of the property interest. Appellees’ br. at 13. In addressing the arbitration, the officers contend that it was designed to protect property rather than reputational interests and exclusively involved stipulations, therefore it was not an adequate name-clearing hearing. Appellants’ br. at 25-26, 40. The city defendants reply that, inasmuch as the officers chose to pursue arbitration rather than a public hearing option, they cannot claim that process was insufficient. Appellees’ br. at 14-15. Inasmuch as the officers contend that a criminal trial does not “per se” suffice as a name-clearing hearing, appellants’ br. at 32, we address the question of whether a criminal trial is a constitutionally adequate name-clearing hearing for “reputational 7 injury” from alleged criminal conduct.5 See Graham v. City of Philadelphia, 402 F.3d 139, 147 (3d Cir. 2005). The criminal trial “with its stringent procedural safeguards and 5 We have indicated that the criminal trial needs to have satisfied due process requirements, Graham, 402 F.3d at 146; in this case, however, the officers fail to allege any well-pleaded facts that the trial was constitutionally deficient in securing due process. To argue otherwise, they direct the Court to statements in the complaint that “[t]he case presented to the jury by the prosecutors against [them] was literally laughable, and, disgraceful,” app’x at 78, and that there was a “shocking and complete lack of credible evidence, and shoddy and reprehensible work by prosecutors and investigators,” id. at 61. The complaint states that “[t]he literally laughable case put on by the United States Attorney . . . is highly relevant to the instant matter, but obviously the nature of its astonishing shortcomings cannot be fully or concisely explicated in this Complaint” and provides no factual allegations of that alleged incompetence. Id. at 102. The complaint directs the Court to an affidavit about the “thread of inaccuracy, incompetence and bias weaved throughout the investigation” and “the Government’s laughable while horrifying incompetencies [sic].” Id. at 103. Nothing in that affidavit properly alleges trial-related activity that if true violates the officers’ due process rights. See id. at 121-28. The officers claim that they could amend their complaint to provide more factual details of any improprieties in the trial. Appellants’ br. at 34. “Our precedent supports the notion that in civil rights cases district courts must offer amendment—irrespective of whether it is requested—when dismissing a case for failure to state a claim unless doing so would be inequitable or futile.” Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007). The District Court dismissed the case with prejudice, noting that “[t]his is not a close case. All [of the officers’] claims are either implausible, non-cognizable, or both.” App’x at 35. We interpret that statement as meaning that amendment would be futile. See In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997) (reading the futility determination into a denial of a motion for leave to amend when no reason was given). We review this determination for abuse of discretion. Id. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this case with prejudice when none of the highlighted allegations rise to a due process violation, as an amendment fleshing out the details of those allegations—in a third amended complaint—would still fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See id. There is also no merit to the officers’ claim that the name-clearing hearing was somehow insufficient to remedy the city defendants’ alleged due process violations because it was brought in federal court rather than in state court. As we held in Graham, the criminal trial “obviat[es]” the need for a name-clearing hearing. 402 F.3d at 145, 147. 8 difficult burden of proof afford[s] plaintiff[s] more process” than that which is constitutionally required to clear one’s name.6 Id. at 146 (internal quotation marks omitted). That trial cleared the officers of the only stigma that they allege—the stigma of the statements made at the press conference regarding their termination. That those statements were republished by a third party is irrelevant: they were made before the trial, and thus the stigma from them was cleared by it. As we hold that the criminal trial was a constitutionally sufficient name-clearing hearing, we decline to consider whether the arbitration was also sufficient as we have no need to do so. The officers received their due process in restoring their reputations. 2. Whether Plaintiffs Are Entitled to an Additional Remedy We never have held that damages are available as a remedy for the harm to the reputational interest in a stigma-plus claim. The city defendants contend that a nameclearing hearing is the sole remedy available. Appellees’ br. at 13. The officers in their complaint allege damages for “reputations for which they are entitled to have a name[- ]clearing hearing; loss of employment prospects; and, emotional distress.” App’x at 112. The officers cite dicta contained in a series of footnotes in otherwise-inapposite cases stating that there may be a situation in which a name-clearing hearing may be insufficient to remedy the wrong of a damaged reputation, although none of those cases provide an example of when that would be the case. See Hill, 455 F.3d at 236 n.15 (“We have not in the past decided—and do not have occasion to decide here—whether a plaintiff who 6 It thus per se more than satisfies the three-prong balancing test that the officers cite from Graham. Graham, 402 F.3d at 145-46. 9 prevails on a ‘stigma-plus’ claim may be entitled to remedies other than a name-clearing hearing.”); Graham, 402 F.3d at 143 n.3 (quoting Ersek, 102 F.3d at 84 n.6) (“We noted in Ersek that it ‘is unclear whether a plaintiff would be entitled to damages in addition to or in lieu of a hearing[,]’ but implied that damages might be available because a nameclearing hearing might not always ‘cure all the harm caused by stigmatizing government comments.’”). We are mindful that we must not “equate a state defamation claim” with a stigmaplus claim. Kelly v. Borough of Sayreville, N.J., 107 F.3d 1073, 1078 (3d Cir. 1997). As we hold above, the officers’ criminal trial afforded them the due process remedy for the harm to their reputation and restored the harm by the “stigma.” The arbitration provided the officers with full reinstatement and back pay; their employment records were expunged of any reference to the alleged defamatory statements, and no employment decision could be based on the conduct for which the officers were acquitted, thus the arbitration fully remedied the interest in the “plus” part of the claim. While we still recognize the theoretical possibility that harm to someone’s reputation would not be recompensed fully by a name-clearing hearing, that is not the situation here. We decline to determine whether any other damages are available in a stigma-plus claim; suffice it to say that in this case the outcome of the criminal trial provided the officers with an adequate remedy to any reputational harm. 10