Opinion ID: 1333537
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellant's liberty interest claim

Text: The concept of a liberty interest is grounded in the Due Process Clause of both our State and Federal Constitutions, which prohibit the deprivation of . . . life, liberty or property, without due process of law. United States Constitution, Amendment V; West Virginia Constitution, Article III, Section 10. The liberty interest concept developed in Board of Regents v. Roth, supra , is the interest an individual has in being free to move about, live and work at his chosen vocation without the burden of an unjustified label of infamy. Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 572, 92 S.Ct. at 2707, 33 L.Ed.2d at 558. A liberty interest is implicated when the state makes a charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in his community. Id. at 573, 92 S.Ct. at 2707, 33 L.Ed.2d at 558. The Roth Court stated that a charge of dishonesty or immorality would implicate an individual's liberty interests. We follow these principles and find that an accusation or label given the individual by his employer which belittles his worth and dignity as an individual and, as a consequence, is likely to have severe repercussions outside his work world, infringes one's liberty interest. Moreover, an individual has an interest in avoiding a stigma or other disability that forecloses future employment opportunities. See Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 574, 92 S.Ct. at 2707, 33 L.Ed.2d at 559. See also Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 633, 638, at nn. 3 & 11, 97 S.Ct. 882, 887, 889 at nn. 3 & 11, 51 L.Ed.2d 92, 100, 103 at nn. 3 & 11 (1977) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 574-575, 95 S.Ct. 729, 736-737, 42 L.Ed.2d 725, 735-736 (1975). In the present case, appellant's suspension was based on several infractions of hospital policy. We do not deem these charges reach the level of stigmatization which would foreclose future employment opportunities or seriously damage appellant's standing and associations in the community. [5] We, therefore, conclude that appellant has not suffered damage to her liberty interest.