Opinion ID: 771927
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Due Process Implications of Excluding Llamas From Future Employment.

Text: 29 As part of Llamas's termination, he was barred from future employment with the District. Llamas asserts that this action is an independent ground implicating his liberty interest under the Due Process Clause. This cause of action does not require any type of public disclosure of the details surrounding the termination. Rather, it seeks to protect the liberty interest in the freedom to engage in any of the common occupations of life. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 572. 30 Under this claim, due process protects a generalized... right to choose one's field of private employment.  Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 292 (1999) (citing cases involving a complete prohibition of the right to engage in a calling). In Roth, the Supreme Court held that due process was not implicated because the State had not barred the professor from all other public employment in state universities. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573. Similarly, Llamas has not been banned from pursuing a janitorial position elsewhere or a career in law enforcement as he desires. Rather, he has only been foreclosed from working for the Butte Community College District. Compare Schware v. Board of Bar Exam'rs of N.M., 353 U.S. 232 (1957) (holding that the state denied plaintiff due process by refusing to allow him to qualify to practice law in the entire state). 31 We have consistently held that people do not have liberty interests in a specific employer. For example, a federal employee does not possess a liberty interest in her civil service career. Clemente v. United States, 766 F.2d 1358, 1365 (9th. Cir. 1985). The Supreme Court has recognized that an employment decision to bar a cook from working at a specific military base did not violate the employee's due process right because the plaintiff remained free to obtain employment... with any other employer. Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 896 (1961). The decision to bar Llamas from future employment with the District did not violate his due process rights. 32