Cannon v. City of W. Palm Beach - 250 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2001)

Rule:

With respect to procedural due process protections, absent a discharge or more, injury to reputation itself is not a protected liberty interest. In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, a "discharge or more" is required in order to satisfy the "plus" element of the stigma-plus test. A transfer or a missed promotion is not enough.

Facts:

Plaintiff Christopher Cannon has been employed as a firefighter by defendant City of West Palm Beach since 1985. In 1998, he sought promotion to the position of Fire Suppression Lieutenant and he took a test for the position. Even though plaintiff received the highest score of any candidate, defendant passed him over and promoted individuals whose scores on the test ranked them second, third and fourth. Defendant’s fire chief told plaintiff that one of the reasons he was passed over for the promotion was because of a memorandum that defendant William Krick, the assistant fire chief, had prepared and placed in his personnel file. The contents of the memorandum included stigmatizing statements about Cannon. Plaintiff then filed a complaint against defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint also alleged that the stigmatizing memorandum did in fact cause plaintiff to be passed over repeatedly for promotion, and claimed that by placing stigmatizing information in his personnel file without giving him an opportunity for a name-clearing hearing, the defendant City violated his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Was petitioner have been deprived of a liberty interest without due process of law?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The present court affirmed. The court held that plaintiff was not discharged, he was only denied a promotion. Thus, absent a discharge or more, the injury to reputation itself was not a protected liberty interest. Therefore, the denial of promotion was insufficient to establish that the denial of an opportunity for a name-clearing hearing violated plaintiff's procedural due process rights. The court affirmed the judgment.