Document: 500 U.S. 226 111 S.Ct. 1789 114 L.Ed.2d 277 Frederick A. SIEGERT, Petitionerv.H. Melvyn GILLEY. No. 90-96. Argued Feb. 19, 1991. Decided May 23, Rehearing Denied June 28, See --- ----, 2920. Syllabus In seeking to become "credentialed" in his new job at an Army hospital, petitioner Siegert, a clinical psychologist, asked former employer, federal provide performance and other information employer. Respondent Gilley, Siegert's supervisor job, responded with letter declaring that he could not recommend Siegert because was inept, unethical, untrustworthy. After denied credentials service employment terminated, filed damages action against Gilley the District Court, alleging, inter alia, that, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 388, 91 1999, 29 619, had caused infringement of "liberty interests" violation Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment "by maliciously bad faith publishing defamatory per se statement . which [he] knew be untrue." motion dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting, among things, defense qualified immunity Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 800, 102 2727, 73 396, contending factual allegations did state any constitutional right "clearly established" time complained-of actions, see id., 818, S.Ct., 2738. The court ultimately found sufficient, but Court Appeals reversed remanded instructions case dismissed. Although assuming bad-faith motivation would suffice make Gilley's actions writing clearly established rights, held particular were insufficient its "heightened pleading standard" overcome claim. Held: properly concluded should have dismissed suit defense. failed allege right—indeed, all—since, Paul Davis, 424 693, 708-709, 96 1155, 1164-1165, 47 405, injury reputation by itself is protected "liberty" interest. He therefore satisfy necessary threshold inquiry determination See, e.g., Harlow, supra, Thus, although reached correct result, it assumed without deciding preliminary issue then proceeded examine sufficiency allegations. claim analytically earlier stage inquiry. Pp. 231-235. 282 U.S.App.D.C. 392, 895 F.2d 797 (CADC 1990) affirmed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, SOUTER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., concurring judgment. MARSHALL, dissenting opinion, BLACKMUN, joined, Parts II III STEVENS, Nina Kraut, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Michael R. Lazerwitz, respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 We granted certiorari this determine whether United States Columbia Circuit directed dismissal petitioner's on grounds respondent's immunity. relied standard," we hold into immunity: allegations, even if accepted as true, rights secured him Constitution. 2 Petitioner employed St. Elizabeth's Hospital, Federal Government facility from November 1979 October 1985. behavior therapy coordinator specializing work mentally retarded children and, lesser extent, adults. January 1985, respondent H. Melvin became head division worked. 3 August notified preparing terminate employment. informed "proposed removal based upon inability report duty dependable reliable manner, failure comply supervisory directives, cumulative charges absence approved leave." App. 15, 21. meeting hospital officials, agreed resign thereby avoid termination might damage reputation. Id., 4 Following resignation Elizabeth's, began working psychologist Hospital Bremerhaven, West Germany. Because requirement hospitals operated Army, signed "Credential Information Request Form" asking prospective supervisor, Colonel William Smith, "all privileges" enjoyed while member staff. request referred been Elizabeth's. 5 response request, "he [Siegert] privileges psychologist." 6. letter, wrote "consider[ed] Dr. both inept perhaps least trustworthy individual I supervised my thirteen years [St. Elizabeth's]." Ibid. receiving Credentials Committee told since "reports about 'extremely unfavorable' committee recommending credentialed." 7. 6 being Committee, turned down position sought Stuttgart. returned Bremerhaven where given provisional credentials, limited administrative appeals Office Surgeon General obtain full credentials. December 1987, claims. Soon thereafter, "federal [was] terminated." 23. 7 Upon learning 1986, Columbia, alleging lose post rendered unable appropriate field. Relying 619 (1971), $4 million that—"by untrue, reckless disregard true not,"—Gilley protections afforded Amendment. 9. also asserted pendent state-law claims defamation, intentional infliction emotional distress, interference contractual relations. 8 alternative contended out right. 396 (1982), Pet. Cert. 30a-31a, 36a. submitted opposing affidavits stating facts supporting malice. 9 issued order "[declining] decide matter Summary Judgment time." 54a. Instead, determined "[it] like more developed record," ordered "a amount discovery." particular, taking depositions parties Smith. 10 reconsideration, stay further discovery pending disposition June, 1988, motion, written sufficient violations It analyzed our decision 405 (1976), closer two decisions Circuit, Doe Department Justice, 243 354, 753 1092 (1985), Bartel FAA, 233 297, 725 1403 (1985). proceed previously discovery. appealed denial pursuant Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 105 2806, 86 411 11 A divided panel first extent premised improper conduct irrespective subjective intent, course analysis, mistakenly Doe, Bartel, supra. 12 allegation Assuming "that such [clearly established] rights," 398, 797, 803 (1990), assertion explained where, here, purpose essential element tort action, plaintiff must adequately specific, direct evidence illicit intent—as opposed merely circumstantial intent—in defeat defendant's judgment asserting 395-396, 398-399, F.2d, 800-801, 803-804a. 13 standard." 400, 805. complaint "merely asserts (and reasserts) making [Gilley] 'knew [it] false [made it] true,' " (citation omitted), "to add anything tangible record. ." 14 certiorari, 498 292, 112 246 clarify analytical structure addressed. examination claim; 15 several occasions addressed proper framework determining plaintiff's are Qualified pleaded defendant official. Gomez Toledo, 446 635, 100 1920, 64 572 (1980); U.S., 815, 2736-2737. Once pleads immunity, "[o]n judge appropriately may determine, only currently applicable law, law occurred. Until question resolved, allowed." 16 case, theory undertaken malice, deprived interest" loss followed refusal Stuttgart consider application employment, general find comparable constituted deprivation. stated no But went "assume[ ] deciding, [Gilley's] [his] process credentialing review adequate meet due requirements." U.S.App.D.C., 803. think 17 said "[u]ntil 2738 (emphasis added). concomitant acted has all. Decision purely legal permits courts expeditiously weed suits fail test requiring who rightly engage expensive consuming preparation defend merits. One purposes absolute qualified, spare unwarranted liability, demands customarily imposed those defending long drawn lawsuit. said: "Harlow thus recognized entitlement stand trial face burdens litigation, conditioned resolution essentially complains violated law. rather than mere liability; effectively lost erroneously permitted go trial." 526, 2815. 18 This demonstrates desirability approach establish 19 photograph included local police chiefs "flyer" "active shoplifters," after arrested shoplifting. shoplifting charge eventually dismissed, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 chiefs, officials' inflicted stigma seriously impair future opportunities, color liberty interests Fourteenth 20 rejected claim, holding interest 1164-1165. pointed reference governmental employer stigmatizing employee Board Regents State Colleges Roth, 408 564, 92 2701, 33 548 (1972), made context discharging failing rehire claimed Defamation, itself, actionable laws most States, 21 alleged cannot, light Tort Claims Act—such brought, exemption act 28 2680(h),—but superior hospital. defamation uttered incident voluntarily resigned weeks later. statements contained undoubtedly one position, prospects. Davis similarly serious impairment opportunities well harm. Most plaintiffs attempt show some sort special out-of-pocket flows their so reputation, recoverable action. assert diversity citizenship between himself 22 assumed, satisfactorily stated. assumption malice defaming him, what describes "stigma plus" met. Our turn, however, mind defendant, lack protection 23 Appeals' majority By different line reasoning, reach same conclusion, 24 Affirmed. 25 26 agree "[a] 'clearly established' all." Ante, 232. do not, "should deciding" issue. adopted altogether normal procedure before ground appeared offer resolution, argued parties. If plain required there doubt asserted, seems reverse usual ordering issues tell appellate they resolve first. 27 As revealed differences opinions, deprivation Constitution, principles difficulty. view, unwise point benefit briefing argument here. affirm reasons Appeals. Here requisite showing bar heightened standard accommodation component objective prevails analysis matter. (1982). There tension rationale me workable means it. departure requirements Rules Civil Procedure 9(b), departs Rule 56. avoidance disruptive very official doctrine, answer say yet opportunity substantive controls. put forward nonconclusory dismissal. reject, present direct, circumstantial, evidence. 803-804. Circumstantial probative testimonial Holland 348 121, 140, 75 127, 137-138, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954). 30 view burden inferred conclusory sets forth detailed persuasive point. 31 For these reasons, concur affirm. 32 whom BLACKMUN joins, STEVENS joins III, dissenting. today decides grant certiorari. Moreover, right, completely mischaracterizes nature significantly "damage [to] reputation" "future prospects." 234. "accompan[ied] [by a] government employment," 706, 1163, (1976) added), change "legal status" occasioned effective foreclosure 705, 1162-63, cognizable majority's procedurally substantively unjustified, dissent. 34 * incorrectly "[w]e immunity." 227. fact, questions much specific. 35 "1. Named raised defense, pleading" precludes prior violates law? 36 "2. damages, can qualifiedly immune regard challenged discretionary nature?" i. 37 According Court's 14.1(a): "[O]nly set petition [for writ certiorari], fairly therein, will considered Court." neither broad enough subsume contends presented case.1 38 thought questioning during oral aware debatable now within review. When counsel compensable she admonished: 39 "[T]he your you allowed there's defensive [sic That really nothing merits think." Tr. Oral Arg. 5. 40 again told: "You haven't explicitly either suggest so." 12. Rather attempting explain why reaches subsumed disingenuously recharacterizes presented. 41 "Absent unusual circumstances, chary considering petitions certiorari." Berkemer McCarty, 468 420, 443, n. 38, 104 3138, 3152, 82 317 (1984) omitted). makes presents "unusual circumstances." significance decides—the employee's reputation—militates heavily favor restraint. author today's once wrote: "Where difficult great public importance involved, strong adhere scrupulously customary limitations discretion." Illinois Gates, 462 213, 224, 103 2317, 2325, 76 527 (1983). Adherence "customary discretion" ensure "day court" receive important issues. central received scant Brief 17-20; 26, 16. insistence reaching disserves adjudicative undermines respect decisions. disagree holding. concludes "right," otherwise. letter. therefore, surmount 2738, (1982).2 43 holds standing alone, demonstrate 712, 1165-66. establishes, does deprive person when combined "some tangible" benefit. 701, 1160-61. enough, example, shows reputational causes "loss imposition disability, "the purchase liquor common rest citizenry," 708, 1164 (citing Wisconsin Constantineau, 400 433, 507, 515 (1971)). 44 met here eligibility condition treat alleges accept true) credentialed, foreclosed charging "inept years," 6, Army's credentialed reports "extremely unfavorable," contends, similar another Stuttgart, legitimate future. 6-9, 19-23.3 45 repeatedly suffers 'where bestow badge disloyalty infamy, attendant opportunity.' quoting Cafeteria Workers McElroy, 367 886, 898, 81 1743, 1750, 1230 (1961) supplied Court). at-will retain [the plaintiff] disability freedom take advantage opportunities." 573, 2707. Accord, Paul, 709-710, 1164-1165 (quoting Roth ).4 conclusion apply 46 Citing suggests deprives ante, suggestion rests gross mischaracterization Paul. private generalized prospects employment; indeed risk labeled shoplifter, fired, 'had best situation' 696, 1158. Therefore, truly expressly reaffirmed recognizing stigmatization 702-710, 1161-1165. Indeed, Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. McGrath, 341 123, 71 624, 95 817 (1951) Attorney General's designation certain organizations "Communist" list furnished Service Commission primarily terms members organizations. 702-705, 1161-1163; 704, 1162 (" 'To certainly small dominates field opportunity,' Comm., 184-185, 655 (Jackson, concurring)). Foreclosure ambit "more coupled create 701-702, 1160-1161 (noting recognition Lovett, 328 303, 66 1073, 90 1252 (1946), congressional stigmatized three employees 'prohibit[ed] ever job' "). B 48 clear known left dispelled jurisdiction Scherer, 183, 191-192, 3012, 3017-3018, 139 (for established, look relevant circuit question).5 On numerous conduct, reiterated principle "effectively foreclos[e] [his her] Old Dominion Dairy Products, Inc. Secretary Defense, 203 371, 382, 631 953, 964 (1980). Conset Corp. Community Services Administration, 211 61, 67, 1291, 1297 (1981) (liberty "memorandum used contract calling Conset's integrity, honesty business reputation"); Mosrie Barry, 231 113, 718 1151, 1161 (1983) government-imposed "so severely impaired plaintiff's] ability contracts 'foreclosed' one's extinguished right"); 373, 1092, 1111 (1985) (government resulting "[l]oss employment" implicates interest). 49 applied strikingly confront us Aviation (1984), plaintiff, worked Administration (FAA) air safety inspector, employ Canada, reemployment FAA. An FAA learned allegedly sent letters officials Privacy Act 1974, 552a, previous tenure hired "best qualified." Eventually temporary GS-12 permanent GS-13 available. 223 299-300, 1405-1406. brought claiming, branded refute controlling survive 309, 1415. 50 "The states specific [stigmatizing crux complaint, read it, basis equal others equivalent skill experience—i.e., wrongfully 'right [employment] all persons.' whose entire career revolved around aviation, abridged employment." (Citations omitted; emphasis added.) 51 20, "alleged accused hampered seek experience"). 52 Circuit's abundantly reasonable mailing circumstances foreclose obtaining constitutionally Yet precisely did.6 C 53 Finally, remains primary certiorari: allow motion. Under understanding believe prove violation. However, erred district permit involving unconstitutional motive unless proffers motive. 803-804 (1990). intent peculiarly control rule underlying warrant precedent sense. 54 "bare subject costs broad-reaching 817-818, instances "tailored specifically immunity" necessary. Anderson Creighton, 483 646-647, 107 3034, 3042-3043, 97 523 (1987). requires proof whenever gone beyond bare, purpose. offered highly reason, overturning permitting 55 perverse jurisprudence recognizes "legal" buy significant fails accord particularly tragic professional specialty appears practice outside institutions. callous real stake profoundly disturbing. actually brief opposition Opposition ("Whether correctly immunity"). purport depiction urged resolves "is scarcely related [and] function entitled raise second 237. address Consequently, briefly responding form inherently discretionary. requested send information" "job [hospital] privileges." 55a. prescribe identified rules restrictions mandated mode manner response, called exercise sent. expectation five attests exemplary ratings supervisors rated "outstanding" 1984. 20. personal soon arose extensive medical leave resistance attempts modify aspects modification program. 19-20. obtained advanced notice going terminated agreement precise personnel file tainted. Approximately resigned, 5-6. Notably, concept includes 'the contract, occupations life generally enjoy orderly pursuit happiness free men.' 572, 2707, Meyer Nebraska, 262 390, 399, 625, 626, 67 1042 (1923). (1987), "contours [are] sufficiently understand doing right." 640, 3039. stressed though question" unlawful. Rather, pre-existing unlawfulness [is] apparent." 535, 12, 2820, ("We intend always liability warrantless search never conducted identical circumstances"). applying history needed complete process. matter, years" hamper gain children. Cf. 381, 963 (1980) ("A 'lacked integrity,' communicated through channels likely continue every bid contract").

Category: 7