Opinion ID: 789286
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liberty Interest in the Pursuit of Occupation

Text: 24 Dr. Fenje argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claim that Dr. Feld violated his liberty interest in being free from a stigmatizing dismissal without due process of law. The precise legal framework under which Fenje brings this claim is not entirely clear from his scanty briefing and argument on this issue. It is true that state employees have a liberty interest in not being discharged from their employment while being defamed such that they cannot get other government employment. Strasburger v. Bd. of Educ., 143 F.3d 351, 356 (7th Cir.1998). This court has also held that when a state actor attacks a person's good name in a manner that makes it `virtually impossible' for the person to find new employment, that person's liberty interest to pursue his occupation is infringed. Beischel v. Stone Bank Sch. Dist., 362 F.3d 430, 439 (7th Cir.2004). In yet another formulation, we have stated that if the character and circumstances of a public employer's ... conduct or statements are such to have destroyed an employee's freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities, the employee can bring suit based upon the deprivation of his freedom to pursue the occupation of his choice. Hedrich v. Bd. of Regents, 274 F.3d 1174, 1183 (7th Cir.2001). 25 Dr. Fenje's claim fails for numerous reasons, but it is sufficient for our purposes to note that a claim alleging the abridgement of a liberty interest in being free from a stigmatizing dismissal at the hands of a public employer requires, as a necessary element of the constitutional tort, that a public official made false, defamatory statements of fact about the plaintiff and the reasons for his termination. Strasburger, 143 F.3d at 356; Hedrich, 274 F.3d at 1184; Beischel, 362 F.3d at 439. The district court recognized this required element and granted summary judgment because the record contains no facts supporting it. Dr. Fenje does not address this deficiency in his appellate brief and makes no attempt to explain exactly when, where, or to whom Dr. Feld made false factual statements concerning Dr. Fenje's dismissal from the UIC program. If Dr. Feld could be said to have publicized the reasons underlying Dr. Fenje's dismissal at all (Fenje does not identify facts to show that this occurred), Dr. Feld's reasons were demonstrably and indisputably true: Dr. Fenje was not forthcoming about his dismissal from the residency at the Scottish hospital. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant on this claim.