Goetz v. Windsor Central School District
698 F.2d 606, 9 Educ. L. Rep. 45 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public employee has a constitutionally protected liberty interest that requires a due process name-clearing hearing if the employer disseminates false and stigmatizing information in connection with the employee's termination. However, a contractual provision requiring an employer to provide reasons for termination does not, by itself, convert an at-will employment relationship into one protected by a property interest.
Facts:
- In October 1979, the Windsor Central School District appointed Dennis Goetz to the position of 'cleaner.'
- In late 1980, school officials became aware of a series of thefts at the district offices and a police investigation began.
- Following the investigation, police arrested Goetz and charged him with third-degree burglary.
- On January 10, 1981, the School District suspended Goetz because of his alleged participation in the break-ins.
- School official Ellen Skoviera sent Goetz a letter requesting a written explanation of his involvement, but Goetz never provided one.
- On January 22, 1981, the School District terminated Goetz's employment.
- No information regarding the reasons for Goetz's termination was placed in his official personnel file.
- The criminal charge against Goetz was later reduced and he was granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal.
Procedural Posture:
- Dennis Goetz sued the Windsor Central School District and four of its officials in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging a violation of his due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Goetz possessed no protectable property interest and had failed to show the defendants publicized defamatory information to establish a liberty interest.
- The district court also denied Goetz's motion to add another defendant as moot.
- Goetz (appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school district's termination of an at-will employee, based on an allegedly false and stigmatizing accusation of theft, implicate the employee's Fourteenth Amendment property or liberty interests, thus requiring a due process hearing?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardamone, J.
No, as to the property interest; but potentially yes, as to the liberty interest. The termination of an at-will public employee does not implicate a Fourteenth Amendment property interest, even if a collective bargaining agreement requires notice and reasons for termination. However, the termination may implicate a liberty interest if the employer publicly disseminates false and stigmatizing information in connection with the discharge, and the employee is entitled to discovery on the issue of dissemination. For the property interest claim, the court reasoned that Goetz was an at-will employee under New York Civil Service Law, as he was an unskilled laborer with less than five years of service. Citing Board of Regents v. Roth, the court held that at-will employees lack a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment and thus have no protected property interest. The collective bargaining agreement, which required the district to provide reasons for release, was a procedural protection that did not alter Goetz's underlying at-will status to a 'for cause' employment relationship. For the liberty interest claim, the court found that a constitutional interest is implicated when an employer creates and disseminates a false and defamatory impression in connection with a termination. The allegation of theft is inherently stigmatizing. While the defendants provided affidavits that they kept the reasons for termination confidential, Goetz presented affidavits showing that townspeople were aware of the allegation. This created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether school district employees were responsible for the public dissemination of the stigmatizing information. Therefore, summary judgment was improper, and Goetz should be permitted discovery on the issue of dissemination.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the important distinction between procedural rights granted by contract and a substantive property interest in public employment. It establishes that merely requiring an employer to give 'reasons' for termination does not automatically create a 'for cause' employment standard that gives rise to a property interest. More significantly, the ruling strengthens the 'stigma-plus' liberty interest claim by holding that a plaintiff can survive a summary judgment motion and proceed to discovery by raising a factual dispute about the source of public dissemination, even when the employer claims confidentiality. This makes it more difficult for public employers to dismiss reputational harm claims at an early stage of litigation.
