Opinion ID: 1147623
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: liberty interest/due process

Text: [7] Plaintiff argues that her discharge deprived her of a liberty interest in future employment without due process. In this context, a liberty interest is infringed if (1) the government dismisses an employee based on a charge that calls into question his good name, honor or integrity, or (2) if the government imposes a stigma or other disability that forecloses the employee's freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities. Giles v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 90 Wn.2d 457, 461, 583 P.2d 1213 (1978), cited in Ritter v. Board of Comm'rs, 96 Wn.2d 503, 510, 637 P.2d 940 (1981). Plaintiff argues that her loyalty was called into question thus implicating her good name, honor, or integrity. This claim is unpersuasive. The only evidence of any mention of disloyalty is found in respondents' declarations in support of summary judgment, and in internal discussions of Dicomes' job performance, neither of which can supply support for her claim. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 348, 48 L.Ed.2d 684, 96 S.Ct. 2074 (1976). Further, DOL's statements regarding Dicomes' inefficiency, which are supported by the record, do not implicate integrity or honor. Giles, at 461. Finally, the DOL has not taken any affirmative steps to foreclose Dicomes' opportunity to seek employment elsewhere. See State ex rel. Swartout v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 25 Wn. App. 174, 184, 605 P.2d 796, review denied, 93 Wn.2d 1021, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 992 (1980). Her employment opportunities may have been diminished, but not foreclosed, see Ritter, at 510, as evidenced by her subsequent employment as executive secretary of the South King County Multi-Service Center. Therefore, Dicomes' liberty interest in future employment was not infringed by the discharge, and the trial court is affirmed.