Opinion ID: 766509
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Substantive due process - protected liberty interest in his good name and reputation

Text: 49 Jackson concedes on appeal that he did not plead an independent substantive due process claim, and that his claims are more appropriately analyzed under other provisions of the Constitution. He contends, however, that he pled a protected interest in his good name and reputation. This court has held that a person has a protected liberty interest in his reputation, good name, honor, and integrity, as well as in being free to move about, live, and practice his profession without the burden of an unjustified label of infamy. Joelson v. United States, 86 F.3d 1413, 1420 (6th Cir. 1996) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). To establish a deprivation of a protected liberty interest in the employment context, a plaintiff must demonstrate stigmatizing governmental action which so negatively affects his or her reputation that it effectively forecloses the opportunity to practice a chosen profession. Id. He or she must also allege that the stigmatizing information was publicly disclosed. See id. 50 The district court correctly held that Jackson's complaint failed to meet this pleading standard. His bare allegation that the acts of the City resulted in irreparable harm and injury is unsupported by the facts. No facts are pleaded that show that Jackson's status as the Chief of Police has been altered in any way, or that he has made any efforts to obtain comparable employment elsewhere. Despite his argument that his reputational injury has effectively foreclose[d] the opportunity to practice a chosen profession, Jackson never relinquished his position as the Chief of Police during the pendency of the investigation and still retains that position. 51 For these reasons, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Jackson's substantive due process claim.