668 F. Supp. 554 - Ishee v. Moss’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A constitutionally protected liberty interest is implicated only if an employee is discharged in a manner that creates a false and defamatory impression which stigmatizes and forecloses him from other employment opportunities. [ White v. Thomas, 660 F.2d 680, 684 (5th Cir.1981)]; Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 628 [, 97 S.Ct. 882, 884 , 51 L.Ed.2d 92 ]... (1977). Moreover, for a charge to be stigmatizing, it must be worse than merely adverse; it must be such as to give rise to a "badge of infamy, public scorn, or the like." [ Wells v. Hico Indep. Sch. Dist., 736 F.2d 243 , 256 n. 16 (5th Cir. 1984)] (and cases cited therein). Finally, the employee must show that the governmental agency has made the stigmatizing charges public in any official or intentional manner, other than in connection with the defense of related legal action. Wells, 736 F.2d at 256 ; Ortwein v. Mackey, 511 F.2d 696, 699 (5th Cir.1975). In summary, to support a claim of deprivation of a liberty interest, a plaintiff must show (1) that he has been stigmatized, (2) in or as a result of the "discharge" process, and (3) that the stigmatization resulted from charges made public by his employer. [ Kelleher v. Flawn, 761 F.2d 1079, 1087 (5th Cir. 1985)]; Wells v. Doland, 711 F.2d 670, 676 (5th Cir.1983).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hall v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF STATE INST.

2. “Disclosure within an agency may implicate a liberty interest if the disclosure is gratuitously made to persons with no responsibility for or interest in the matter disclosed. Ventetuolo v. Burke, 470 F. Supp. 887, 896 (D.R.I. 1978). Here no such gratuitous disclosures have been shown. All disclosures mentioned in the pleadings, evidence at the hearing on the preliminary injunction, briefs following that hearing, and memorandum in the present motion for summary judgment have been those made in connection with the investigation into the charges. Clearly, the agency must have the right to investigate charges against its employees and must have immunity in the reasonable investigation of these charges. Nor does the presence of the derogatory information in the confidential file implicate a liberty interest absent a showing that the employer has made or is likely to make the disclosure public in an official or intentional manner. Wells, 736 F.2d at 258 n. 20; Kelleher, 761 F.2d at 1087 ; Sims v. Fox, 505 F.2d 857, 864 (5th Cir.1974)... .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hall v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF STATE INST.

3. “[t]here is no evidence the general public or employees other than those questioned in connection with the investigation ever became aware of the reason for termination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hall v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF STATE INST.