OR · 42usc1983:deprivation.due-process-liberty
Reputational injury alone is insufficient under Paul v. Davis; requires "stigma-plus" (defamatory governmental statement coupled with extinguishment or distinct alteration of a state-recognized right or employment status).
Exact element source
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and lawsSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [306:402] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| stigma-plus/defamation-with-demotion-not-discharge | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 — satisfied |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause (including stigma-plus under Paul v. Davis) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable The "plus" is the demotion / lost promotion, so this element is conditional on the property-interest holdings above. | stigma-plus/defamation-with-demotion-not-discharge | During this period Kamenesh received several adverse performance evaluations from Defendants Oboz and Putnam. In addition, news of the charges against Kamenesh was improperly leaked to the press before the investigation was complete.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [3405:3638] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.The Internal Security investigation conducted over the next several weeks cleared Kamenesh of the charges of associating with a convicted felon but found him untruthful and insubordinate to Oboz and neglectful of his duties.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [2843:3067] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.The individual must not only be stigmatized, but stigmatized in connection with the denial of a right or status “theretofore recognized under [state law].”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [17587:17742] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.It is not necessary, then, that the right be completely extinguished, as in the case of a discharge, but merely that it be “distinctly altered.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [18751:18895] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Plaintiff satisfies the “stigma-plus” test established by the Supreme Court in Paul v. Davis for purposes of surviving Defendant’s summary judgment motion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [17821:17976] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
The individual must not only be stigmatized, but stigmatized in connection with the denial of a right or status “theretofore recognized under [state law].”
/f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991
The individual must not only be stigmatized, but stigmatized in connection with the denial of a right or status “theretofore recognized under [state law].”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [17587:17742] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Reputational injury alone is insufficient under Paul v. Davis; requires "stigma-plus" (defamatory governmental statement coupled with extinguishment or distinct alteration of a state-recognized right or employment status).
interpretation
It is not necessary, then, that the right be completely extinguished, as in the case of a discharge, but merely that it be “distinctly altered.”
/f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991
It is not necessary, then, that the right be completely extinguished, as in the case of a discharge, but merely that it be “distinctly altered.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [18751:18895] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Reputational injury alone is insufficient under Paul v. Davis; requires "stigma-plus" (defamatory governmental statement coupled with extinguishment or distinct alteration of a state-recognized right or employment status).