Opinion ID: 1358762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Due Process Clause Liberty Interest

Text: An employee is entitled to procedural due process only when he has been deprived of a constitutionally protected ... liberty interest. Winegar v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 20 F.3d 895, 899 (8th Cir.1994). An employee's liberty interests are implicated where the employer levels accusations at the employee that are so damaging as to make it difficult or impossible for the employee to escape the stigma of those charges. Id. This stigma may be established where the employee is accused of actions involving dishonesty, immorality, criminality, [and] racism.... Id. An unconstitutional deprivation may occur when an employee is not given an opportunity to clear his or her name. Stodghill v. Wellston Sch. Dist., 512 F.3d 472, 476 (8th Cir.2008); Coleman v. Reed, 147 F.3d 751, 755 (8th Cir.1998). To establish an unconstitutional liberty interest deprivation, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) he was stigmatized by the statements; (2) those statements were made public by the administrators; and (3) he denied the stigmatizing statements. Coleman, 147 F.3d at 755. Here, Rush's employment was terminated in an open session of the Board for alleged misconduct including dishonestyan accepted stigmatizing charge. See Winegar, 20 F.3d at 899. Following the termination of his employment, Rush requested a name-clearing hearing via letter. The Board denied the request. The district court concluded, based upon the record before it, that Rush had sufficiently established the elements required to prove an unconstitutional liberty interest deprivation to avoid summary judgment. See Coleman, 147 F.3d at 755. We agree.