Document: 429 U.S. 624 97 S.Ct. 882 51 L.Ed.2d 92 Michael J. CODD, Police Commissioner, City of New York, et al., Petitioners,v.Elliott H. VELGER. No. 75-812. Feb. 22, 1977. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent Velger's action shifted its focus, in a way not uncommon to lawsuits, from the time filing his complaint United States District Court for Southern York decision by Appeals Second Circuit which we review here. His original alleged that he had been wrongly dismissed without hearing or statement reasons position as patrolman with Department, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, sought reinstatement damages resulting injury reputation future employment prospects. After proceedings Judge Gurfein (then Court) ruled respondent held probationary therefore no right based on property interest job, filed an amended complaint. That more specifically than previous one was entitled due stigmatizing effect certain material placed Department personnel file. He derogatory brought about subsequent dismissal Penn-Central Railroad it also prevented him finding other similar nature scores numerous examinations otherwise qualified him.1 2 The case came bench trial before Werker, who, words opinion merits, found "against plaintiff all issues." determined only issue survived Gurfein's ruling earlier motions whether petitioners, discharging "imposed stigma Mr. Velger foreclosed freedom take advantage opportunities." discussing evidence bearing upon this issue, Werker concluded "(i)t is clear foregoing facts has proved stigmatized defendants." 3 Among specific findings fact made officer shown file relating respondent's employment, presentation form signed authorizing release information. From examination file, "gleaned because while still trainee put revolver head apparent suicide attempt." tried verify story, but refused cooperate him, advising proceed letter. In rendering judgment against respondent, court failed establish "that information service publicized circulated defendants any might reach prospective employers." 4 successfully appealed Circuit. clearly erroneous. It reasoned attempt kind would necessarily impair prospects seeking work police officer. decided mere act making available files employee's consent enough place responsibility employer, since former employees practical alternative such if they wished be seriously considered employment. v. Cawley, 525 F.2d 334 (1975). 5 We granted certiorari, sub nom. Cawley Velger, 427 904, 96 3188, 49 1197 (1976), parties have urged us consider report question nature, circumstances dissemination were fall within language Board Regents Roth, 408 564, 573, 2701, 2707, 33 548 (1972) Bishop Wood, 426 341, 2074, 48 684 (1976). find unnecessary these issues, however, failure allege prove essential element case. 6 Assuming elements necessary make out claim stigmatization Roth Bishop, remedy mandated Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment "an opportunity refute charge." U.S., at S.Ct., 2707. "The purpose notice provide person name," id., 573 n. 12, But serve useful purpose, there must some factual dispute between employer discharged employee significant reputation. Nowhere pleadings elsewhere affirmatively asserted substantially false. Neither nor finding. When protected, believe absence allegation fatal should given hearing. 7 Where liberty involved conditional following parole, said required order revoke parole address two separate considerations. first parolee committed violation charged, second did commit should, circumstances, revoked. Morrissey Brewer, 471, 479-480, 2593, 2599, 484 (1972); Gagnon Scarpelli, 411 778, 784, 93 1756, 1760, 36 656 (1973). respect commission obviate need warranted revocation parole. 8 (1, 2) where nontenured course terminate solely "to name." If does challenge substantial truth question, afford promise achieving result him. For contemplated embrace determination analogous "second step" proceeding, not, conceding true, properly re-employment. Since continued employment,2 adequacy even existence failing rehire presents federal constitutional question. Only creates disseminates false defamatory impression connection termination required. supra; supra. 9 Our here rests overly technical application rules pleading. Even occurred attempt, proposition certainly crystal record, stage litigation stated "attempt" reported. furthest gone suggestion counsel "i(t) mistake, (i)t could little horseplay." This raise accuracy report. harmed denial hearing, accept entirety creation disclosure amounted meaning 10 reversed instructions reinstate Court. 11 So ordered. 12 Justice BLACKMUN, concurring. 13 I join Court's per curiam opinion, emphasize appropriately disclosed employers. are presented limits, any, prejudicial, irrelevant, accurate 14 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 15 dissent today's holding expressed my Brother STEVENS Part dissent, despite belief likely importance. 16 suffered deprivation when petitioners terminated retained later disseminated employer. Under (1972), timely pretermination today reaffirms holds retrospective equitable relief 1983 denied "at litigation,"1 ante, 628, "raise(d) report" question.2 Ibid. holding, believe, erroneously allocates burden introducing falsity into lawsuit. 17 Twice Term reasserted principle once establishes another interfered rights, shifts wrongdoer demonstrate interference strictly harmless. Arlington Heights Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 555, 270-271, 566, 50 450; Mt. Healthy Ed. Doyle, 274, 287, 568, 576, 471. met initial burden, adequately job conjunction discharge public comply Roth's requirement process agree remains open petitioners' rights produced little3 compensable injury, since, held, charges remained unrefuted. proof truthful defense raised defendant subject, course, appropriate disposition summary thereupon fail contest "substantial report." interposed case, upheld. 18 III STEVENS' dissenting remand further proceedings. 19 STEWART, 20 Although sharing generally views reason 21 STEVENS, 22 There three aspects disagree. First, am persuaded who claims "stigmatized" State being afforded charge state cause 1983. Second, assume stigmatized, contrary Third, decide issue. 23 * negates State's give appear rest view unless false.1 did, represent radical departure basic our legal system guilty well innocent fair trial.2 572-575, 548. deprived refusal destroys "good name" community forecloses practicing profession. A may correct. 349, 2080, 684, makes "neither enhances diminishes (the employee's) constitutionally protected impaired." charge, true false, involves liberty, accompany deprivation. And normally, plainly states, Constitution mandates "a full prior hearing." 574, 2707.3 24 include consideration warrants discharge. itself part defend. Release unfavorable can damage prospects, far greater caused official determination, information, unfit Indeed resulted associated Paul Davis, 424 693, 709-710, 1155, 47 405. allowing keep eliminate (or least lessen) loss requires warrant discharge.4 short, precede two-fold: second, basis deciding what facts.5 perfectly procedural safeguards observed. Cf. Groppi Leslie, 404 496, 503, 582, 586, 30 632. reasons, disagree assertion "solely" name.6 25 agreed sole suit. Surely show harmless error true. See BRENNAN's p. 629.7 Moreover, rise unrelated possible outcome hearing.8 26 Today's unfortunate encouraging officials deny hearings feel confident correctness their decision. But, Frankfurter's oft-quoted words: 27 "That conclusion satisfies one's private conscience attest reliability. validity moral authority largely depend mode reached. Secrecy congenial truth-seeking self-righteousness gives too slender assurance rightness. No better instrument devised arriving jeopardy serious meet it. Nor generating feeling, so important popular government, justice done." Anti-Fascist Committee McGrath, 341 123, 171-172, 71 624, 649, 95 L.Ed. 817 (concurring opinion). 28 As last sentence quotation demonstrates, consequences sufficiently grievous constitute procedures followed nothing do merits individual minor impairment principle. admits compromise. II 29 proving reason, stigmatized. proper standard appellate review,9 cannot say erroneous, particularly record discloses exactly was, others. reached instance. instance, allowed see permission. then status. expressly released government agency applied. App. 113a-114a.10 Thus, past effects concerned, "stigma" term used 548.11 31 relied demonstrating employers bar obtaining 334, 336 (CA2 1975). Notwithstanding broad discovery authorized Federal Rules Civil Procedure, precisely adverse incident sometime 21st birthday, trainee; points out, horseplay"; conduct presumably good. discharge.12 On matter law reject attempts explain uniformly refuse hire 32 performance function construction, resolve ambiguities differently, sinister cast actions apparently deemed innocent. . those choices, mandate set aside 'unless erroneous.' " Real Estate Boards, 339 485, 495-496, 70 711, 717, 94 1007. conclude incorrect setting fact. stigma, erred 34 possible, interest. rejected entitlement law, merit justify directions 35 plaintiff's "terminable will either party irrespective quality party." 345 9, 2078, accompanying text. judicial review. protection arbitrary According cited Gurfein, 37a, Commissioner "unsatisfactory employee(s),"13 reviewable courts "arbitrary capricious" standard. re Going Kennedy, A.D.2d 173, 176-177, 170 N.Y.S.2d 234, 237-238 (1958), aff'd, N.Y.2d 900, 183 81, 156 N.E.2d 711 (1959); Talamo Murphy, 38 637, 382 3, 546 (1976).14 Unlike pointless entitle rebut him.15 By directing judgment, summarily rejects benefit briefing oral argument point.16 claim. Respondent's seek delayed conducted (1972). premised assumption accord accorded obtain occasion allocation pleading issues forum administrative sought. pass "property interest" affirming court, indeed conceded brief interpretation relevant cases correct respect. Brief 14. point reflects understanding supra, Perry Sindermann, 593, 2694, 570 disturb particular facets tenure. Id., 602 7, 2700 7. fortunately calling "overly pleading." Ante, 628. Indeed, instances reasonably responsible plead example, faulted falsity, "does know contents never seen advised file." 51a. undoing occurred, according Court, "stage(s) litigation," learned effort argued truthful, informative role policeman employee. BLACKMUN notes, 629, therefore, foreclose imposes constraints collection bears attenuated relationship qualifications. preclude award Nonetheless, satisfy established right. infringement intangible right, e. g., Nixon Herndon, 273 536, 540, 446, 759 (1927) (damages allowable unlawful vote), jury permitted fix perhaps nominal very participate attempting name. indicates, 625 1, precondition violation, irrelevant. grant relief, determine turn require falsity. recognize violation. Sims Fox, 505 857, 863-864 (CA5 1974) (en banc), cert. denied, 421 1011, 2415, 44 678. 1164-1165, 405 (describing 548, involving "defamation"). "When most degraded rudiments trial, endanger liberties everyone. pattern dangerously expansive adaptable needs majority bent suppressing opposition dissension. "It significance provisions Bill Rights procedural. procedure spells much difference rule whim caprice. Steadfast adherence strict main equal law." 179, 652, (Douglas, J., concurring). read 2706-2708, discusses "liberty" Amendment, quite different interests implicated discharged. considers individual's 'good name, reputation, honor, integrity.' reputational name-clearing footnote tell surely imply whose violated. ensuing paragraphs, avoiding disability" opportunities. With interest, rather imposed "full Similarly, 348, 2079, remain confidential, written modified reflect less one-sided description events. 627: "Where parole." reasoning equally applicable person's reason. terminated. ibid., "the 'to name.' (Emphasis added.) Earlier, states: "Assuming 'an charge.' (2701,) 2707." Of neither Constitution. approach produce perverse results includes To longer hold subject. problem squarely request At statement: "And reinstated adversary 93a. modern practice, formal necessary. requested declaratory terminating (was) .," "such additional seem just, equitable." 55a-56a. And, Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 54(c) provides "every final shall favor rendered entitled, demanded pleadings." Tone's thoughtful discussion Hostrop Junior College Dist. 515, 523 569, 578-580 (CA7 general governing clear: "In applying erroneous district sitting jury, court's constantly mind de novo. reviewing judge circumscribed deference decisions trier fact, usually superior appraise weigh evidence. Rule 52(a) 'on entire (it) left definite firm conviction mistake committed.' Gypsum Co., 333 364, 395, 68 525, 542, 746 (1948)." Zenith Corp. Hazeltine, 395 100, 89 1562, 1576, 129. indication" obtained except 335 Apart instance seems told hired character investigation satisfactory, passed civil received several interviews jobs. referred proves testified permission inspect 81a. unsuccessful attempts, good scores, interviews, access Entirely apart factors attractive applicants. recognizes types stigma. "might standing associations community." single hardly standing. "foreclos(ing) enough, "somewhat employers," "would foreclosure opportunities amounting 'liberty.' 574 13, 2708. mean same reaction. aftermath harm liberty. inspected "gleaned" Arnett 416 134, 1633, 40 15, 'such promote efficiency (the) service,' 151-152, 1643 (opinion Rehnquist, J.). Six Members satisfied sufficient create Clause. "satisfactory." Kennedy's dimensions, similarity remand. Appellate Division noted appointing delegated employee(s)," compared probation period test designed "able requirements expectations filling position." A.D.2d, 178, 239. Appeals, citing approval, applied "rational basis" commissioner's N.Y.2d, 639, N.Y.S.2d, 4, N.E.2d, 547. Farrell Dept., 782, 355 99 (1974), 37 843, 378 35, 340 469 601, 2699, 570: "A 'property' purposes mutually explicit understandings support invoke trigger process, elaborate "Once applies, due." 481, 2600, 484. respond, writing. abandon portion majority, 628 2, concerns 14; entirely preserve remand, prevailing below argue lower reach. Dandridge Williams, 397 475-476, 6, 90 1153, 1156-1157, 491.

Category: 3