OR · 42usc1983:deprivation.due-process-property
Property interests are created and defined by independent sources such as state law, rules, or mutually explicit understandings that support a legitimate claim of entitlement.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| property-interest-public-employment/constructive-demotion-to-insubstantial-duties | 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 | |
| property-interest-public-employment/constructive-discharge-without-resignation | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 — not | |
| property-interest-public-employment/denial-of-discretionary-promotion | 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 property interest under the Due Process Clause (Board of Regents v. Roth) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; count: substantive and procedural due process claims; theory: constructive demotion; subject: count=substantive and procedural due process claims; theory=constructive demotion Same rank and pay, but stripped of command; for-cause limits in state statute + CBA + Police Officer's Bill of Rights supply the entitlement. Performance-evaluation manual rejected as a source. Transfer-vs-demotion is the fact question for trial. | property-interest-public-employment/constructive-demotion-to-insubstantial-duties | Plaintiff has been given nothing but insubstantial responsibilities, largely clerical in nature.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [4117:4213] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Rather than commanding an organic unit as befitting the rank of captain, Kamenesh’s assignments require him to work alone on lightly regarded tasks, with no secretary or subordinate to assist him, and with no bona fide operational function to oversee.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [4214:4465] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Similarly, the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Miami and the police union allows the Department “to suspend, demote, discharge, or take other disciplinary action against employees” only where “proper cause” is present.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [8418:8656] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Section 447.209 of Florida Statutes, on which Defendants rely as the source of their unfettered authority, limits a public employer’s disciplinary and disadvantageous actions against employees to those taken “for proper cause” and “legitimate reasons.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [8165:8417] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.A public employee can have a property interest in hot being demoted without cause — as opposed to not being' transferred without cause — where shch an interest arises from established “rules” or the parties’ “mutually explicit understandings.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [7009:7252] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.whether Kamenesh’s new assignments were only lateral transfers or whether they were so incomparable to his past duties and the duties befitting a Miami Police captain as to constitute a constructive demotionSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [6800:7007] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.the other indicia of entitlement presented sufficiently establishes, for purposes of surviving summary judgment, that Kamenesh maintains the property interest he assertsSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [13021:13190] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Protected property interest under the Due Process Clause (Board of Regents v. Roth) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; theory: constructive discharge; subject: theory=constructive discharge No deprivation of the job itself while the employee stays on at full pay; only the narrower no-demotion-without-cause interest survives. | property-interest-public-employment/constructive-discharge-without-resignation | Secondly, Kamenesh, who has remained with the Police Department despite his alleged diminished duties, asserts that his demotion amounts to a constructive discharge.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [10631:10796] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Plaintiff’s argument fails to recognize a primary element of constructive discharge: that “the employee [be] forced into an involuntary resignation.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [12013:12162] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.the court cannot sanction Plaintiff’s theory of “constructive” constructive discharge for the simple reason that Plaintiff remains in his job, drawing the same salary and benefits otherwise due himSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [11038:11235] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Protected property interest under the Due Process Clause (Board of Regents v. Roth) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; theory: denial of promotion; subject: theory=denial of promotion Weak survival: court doubts a property interest in a largely discretionary appointment, but the record is too unclear to dismiss; "satisfied [triable]" overstates it. | property-interest-public-employment/denial-of-discretionary-promotion | Additionally, Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he has been shut out from even interviewing for positions of advancement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [15124:15251] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.For example, the chief cannot appoint outside individuals to these positions, but must choose candidates from regular members of the Department.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [14731:14875] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Plaintiff shall have the heavy burden at trial of establishing that no legitimate, rational reason prevented his obtaining an otherwise deserved promotionSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [16475:16629] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Sufficient factual and legal questions remain to preclude summary judgment for Defendants on the point.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [16082:16185] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
A public employee can have a property interest in hot being demoted without cause — as opposed to not being' transferred without cause — where shch an interest arises from established “rules” or the parties’ “mutually explicit understandings.”
/f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991
A public employee can have a property interest in hot being demoted without cause — as opposed to not being' transferred without cause — where shch an interest arises from established “rules” or the parties’ “mutually explicit understandings.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [7009:7252] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Property interests are created and defined by independent sources such as state law, rules, or mutually explicit understandings that support a legitimate claim of entitlement.
interpretation
Plaintiff’s argument fails to recognize a primary element of constructive discharge: that “the employee [be] forced into an involuntary resignation.”
/f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991
Plaintiff’s argument fails to recognize a primary element of constructive discharge: that “the employee [be] forced into an involuntary resignation.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [12013:12162] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Property interests are created and defined by independent sources such as state law, rules, or mutually explicit understandings that support a legitimate claim of entitlement.