Opinion ID: 1057290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Stigma-Plus Claims

Text: ¶ 11. Plaintiff's due process complaint is what federal courts label a stigma-plus claim. See Algarin v. Town of Wallkill, 421 F.3d 137, 138 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005) (tracing the genesis of the stigma-plus claim to Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976), and the first use of the term stigma-plus to Danno v. Peterson, 421 F.Supp. 950, 954 (N.D.Ill.1976)). Stigma-plus claims arise when an individual alleges both the loss of a legally recognized right or status due to government action, and reputation damage due to defamatory statements of government actors. See Behrens v. Regier, 422 F.3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir.2005) (citing Paul, 424 U.S. at 701-02, 711, 96 S.Ct. 1155). When a stigma-plus claim arises in the context of an adverse employment action, and the government's defamation impinges on the individual's future opportunity for employment, she or he is afforded the protection of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because one of the liberties protected by that clause is the individual's right `to engage in any of the common occupations of life.' Herrera I, 2006 VT 83, ¶ 27, 181 Vt. 198, 917 A.2d 923 (quoting Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)). ¶ 12. Two United States Supreme Court cases addressing the protection of liberty interests under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment serve as the guideposts for stigma-plus claims: Board of Regents v. Roth and Paul v. Davis . Roth held, in part, that the government's decision merely not to rehire a nontenured employee does not implicate protected liberty interests. 408 U.S. at 572-75, 92 S.Ct. 2701. While the Court recognized that [t]here might be cases in which a State refused to re-employ a person under such circumstances that interests in liberty would be implicated, it concluded that Roth was not such a case because the government had not made any charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in his community. Id. at 573, 92 S.Ct. 2701. Paul, decided several years later, addressed the reverse of the Roth scenario, namely, the situation wherein the government makes defamatory or stigmatizing statements about an individual, but the individual suffers no concomitant loss of a legally recognized right or status. The Court concluded that governmental harm to reputation alone does not deprive individuals of any liberty interest, Paul, 424 U.S. at 712, 96 S.Ct. 1155, observing that it had never held that the mere defamation of an individual ... was sufficient to invoke the guarantees of procedural due process absent an accompanying loss of government employment, id. at 706, 96 S.Ct. 1155. ¶ 13. As Roth and Paul demonstrate, no liberty-interest due process claim lies unless the individual experiences both the stigma of defamatory statements and the plus of adverse action by the government. Where it was shown that government actors made false and damaging statements, but the plaintiff did not lose employment or other right or entitlement under state law, courts have declined to find any due process violation. See, e.g., Behrens, 422 F.3d at 1261-62 (even though plaintiff was stigmatized as a verified child abuser by the state, plaintiff could not sustain stigma-plus claim because state law provided no right, protected interest, or entitlement to adopt children). Similarly, courts have rejected stigma-plus claims where individuals have lost government employment, but have not shown that the employer made any stigmatizing statements. See, e.g., O'Connor v. Pierson, 426 F.3d 187, 195-96 (2d Cir. 2005) (rejecting stigma-plus claim where plaintiff never alleged that school board made any stigmatizing statements about him, and concluding that plaintiff had alleged only the plus without the stigma with his argument that placement on administrative leave created the stigma). When both the stigma and the plus are present, the remedy for the due process violation is a post-deprivation opportunity [for the plaintiff] to clear his name. Patterson v. City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322, 330 (2d Cir.2004). If no name-clearing hearing is provided, or if the hearing is inadequate, the plaintiff may sue for monetary damages. Id. at 337. ¶ 14. Here, plaintiff sought judgment, before and after the verdict, that his termination, coupled with the comments by the board members and superintendent, presented a stigma-plus situation entitling him to a name-clearing hearing that defendants never afforded him. Because we agreed in Herrera I that defendants' decision to place plaintiff on paid administrative leave was tantamount to dismissal, 2006 VT 83, ¶¶ 15-16, 181 Vt. 198, 917 A.2d 923, and deprived him of the employment to which he was entitled under contract and state law, id. ¶ 20, we conclude that the plus component of plaintiff's stigma-plus claim is satisfied. Plaintiff's evidence concerning the board's and superintendent's statements, however, fails, as a matter of law, to establish the necessary element of stigma.