Opinion ID: 463530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stigma or Disability Foreclosing Job Opportunities

Text: 32 The FBI did not impose a stigma upon Perry which foreclosed his employment opportunities. Adams v. Walker, 492 F.2d 1003 (7th Cir.1974), somewhat clarifies the meaning of the word stigma. After examining the cases cited in Board of Regents v. Roth, this court in Adams concluded that no stigma to reputation occurred when the Governor of Illinois dismissed the plaintiff from his position as chairman of the Illinois Liquor Commission for incompetence, neglect of duty and malfeasance in office. The Adams court noted that nothing in the complaint even remotely suggests a legal barrier to future employment analogous to denial of admission to the bar, disqualification from all government employment, ... or sending substantial adverse information to a professional licensing agency. 492 F.2d at 1009. 33 No legal barrier to Perry's future employment in the government or elsewhere was ever imposed, except for a short period due to a mistake of the Civil Service Commission which caused him no harm. No barrier exists now. The record contains a letter dated May 1, 1978 from the Civil Service Commission informing Perry that this office has made a determination in your favor based on known suitability matters.... Your eligibility will provide you with full consideration for all positions for which you qualify. Perry's brief confirms that the Commission conducted an intensive investigation and ruled that plaintiff was suitable for ... [federal] employment and ordered the restoration of plaintiff's name to all eligibility rosters on which he had attained placement. 34 Although dissemination of the FBI memorandum may have lessened Perry's employment opportunities in certain areas of the federal government, a liberty interest is not implicated merely by a reduction in an individual's attractiveness to potential employers. Lipp v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 470 F.2d 802, 805 (7th Cir.1972), quoted with approval in Hadley v. County of DuPage, 715 F.2d 1238, 1247 (7th Cir.1983). See also Roth, 408 U.S. at 575, 92 S.Ct. at 2708 (It stretches the concept of liberty too far to suggest that a person is deprived of 'liberty' when he simply is not rehired in one job but remains as free as before to seek another.). 35 The FBI conduct about which Perry complains was not disciplinary or punitive. The FBI conducted a routine investigation of Perry on possible criminal charges. An argument arose on appeal about whether the FBI acted maliciously in disseminating the memorandum, or had intentionally fabricated the incidents. We cannot find in the record that Perry attempted to show that the FBI actually fabricated false information and distributed it with some malicious intent. At most the FBI information was only incorrect. Judge Marovitz did not mention any claim of deliberate falsification. If the FBI had some malicious intent it likely would have included in its memorandum other uncomplimentary information it had about Perry. 5 It could also have slanted the report and included some admonition about not hiring Perry. The FBI did none of these things. In his post-argument brief Perry himself, however, helps lay that malicious and intentional issue argument to the side, and takes the position that malicious dissemination and intentional fabrication are not essential elements of his liberty claim. Perry relies only on the five-page memorandum. That side issue of the case, therefore, need no longer be pursued. 36 The BATF conducted its own investigation and did not rely exclusively upon the FBI report in making its employment decision. The BATF officer who made the employment decision stated that even without the FBI report and based on BATF's own investigation he would have concluded that Perry was not suitable for employment as an agent. BATF's decision determined only that Perry was not suitable for one particular job; BATF neither publicly criticized Perry nor expressed any opinion about Perry's suitability for another government position. BATF simply exercised its own judgment about the desirability of hiring Perry for a specific position in that one agency. A mere failure to hire, considering all the circumstances of this case, does not meet the stigma plus standard as characterized in Colaizzi v. Walker, 542 F.2d 969 (7th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 960, 97 S.Ct. 1610, 51 L.Ed.2d 811 (1977). 6