Opinion ID: 2200289
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liberty Interest Due Process Claim.

Text: To prevail upon his section 1983 claim, Bennett must establish (1) a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution, and (2) the deprivation of that right by persons acting under color of state law. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1604, 26 L.Ed.2d 142, 150 (1970). Bennett claims the City deprived him of his constitutional right of liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. While liberty is most clearly deprived when a state takes an individual into custody, the state also may deprive a person of his or her liberty by damaging the person's reputation so severely that associational or employment opportunities are impaired or foreclosed. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2707, 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 558-59 (1972); 4 E. McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations 3d, sec. 12.260, p. 503 (1985). This may occur when a city discharges a public employee. See, e.g., Anderson v. Low Rent Hous. Comm'n, 304 N.W.2d 239, 243 (Iowa 1981). To establish a liberty interest due process claim, the claimant must prove that the employer published [1] false [2] , stigmatizing [3] charges in connection with the discharge [4] which were denied by the claimant [5] and which seriously damaged the claimant's employment opportunities or standing and associations in the community, [6] all without notice and opportunity to be heard in a name clearing hearing [7] requested [8] by the claimant. Therefore, if the claimant has been afforded notice and opportunity to be heard in a name clearing hearing, no liberty interest claim arises. As stated in Nelson v. City of McGehee, 876 F.2d 56, 58 (8th Cir.1989), [i]t is the denial of due process, not the alleged defamation per se, which triggers a federal cause of action. The due process requirement is satisfied where the employee is notified of the reasons for discharge and furnished the opportunity of a name clearing hearing. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573, 92 S.Ct. at 2707, 33 L.Ed.2d at 558-59. Where a property interest in public employment is at issue, a pretermination hearing is required. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1493, 84 L.Ed.2d 494, 503-04 (1983). However, where an employee's liberty interest is at issue, a post-termination hearing is sufficient. As expressed by the Supreme Court: [L]iberty is not offended by dismissal from employment itself, but instead by dismissal based upon an unsupported charge which could wrongfully injure the reputation of an employee. Since the purpose of the hearing in such a case is to provide the person an opportunity to clear his name, a hearing afforded by administrative appeal procedures after the actual dismissal is a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Due Process Clause. Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 157, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 1646, 40 L.Ed.2d 15, 35 (1974). If a name clearing hearing is requested, even a special purpose hearing before the governing body that discharged the employee may satisfy due process requirements. See Rosenstein v. City of Dallas, 876 F.2d 392, 396 (5th Cir.1989); Campbell v. Pierce County, 741 F.2d 1342, 1345-46 (11th Cir.1984). Due process requires only that the claimant be accorded notice of the charges and opportunity to present arguments and evidence at a public forum. See Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 542, 105 S.Ct. at 1493, 84 L.Ed.2d at 503-04; Wellner v. Minnesota State Junior College Bd., 487 F.2d 153, 156-57 (8th Cir.1973). On our review of the record, we find the City notified Bennett of the reasons for his removal in accordance with Iowa Code section 372.15. A public hearing was held within thirty days of Bennett's request for a hearing. At the hearing, Bennett and his attorney, Linda Pettit, responded to the reasons given for his discharge. They offered petitions signed by persons in the community. Pettit testified they brought out everything that Bennett had to say at that hearing. Bennett had no disagreement with her testimony. Bennett did not present substantial evidence that he was denied an opportunity to be heard in a name clearing hearing. Therefore, the district court erred in denying the City's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In addition, Bennett failed to present substantial evidence on another element of his claim. He did not produce substantial evidence that the City gave stigmatizing reasons for his dismissal. To violate the constitutionally protected liberty interest, the accusations must be of grave consequence. Anderson v. Low Rent Housing Comm'n, 304 N.W.2d at 244. They must involve allegations of dishonest, immoral, or illegal conduct that call into question the terminated employee's honesty, reputation, or good name. Id. It is undisputed on appeal that the first three reasons given by the City for discharging Bennett were not stigmatizing in nature. However, even a charge of misuse of city time does not stigmatize an individual unless other circumstances show that dishonest, immoral, or illegal conduct is implied in the allegation. Bennett failed to produce such other evidence. A charge of misuse of city time may imply that the employee, through no character fault of the employee, failed to establish priorities or to use city time efficiently. See, e.g., Nathanson v. United States, 630 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (8th Cir.1980) (charge of failure to follow procedures not stigmatizing); Ventetuolo v. Burke, 596 F.2d 476, 484 (1st Cir.1979) (charge of insubordination not stigmatizing); Mazaleski v. Treusdell, 562 F.2d 701, 712 (D.C.Cir.1977) (charge of substandard performance not stigmatizing); Russell v. Hodges, 470 F.2d 212, 215, 217 (2d Cir.1972) (charge of sleeping on duty not stigmatizing).