Mark A. Merritt v. M. D. Reed

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2582

___________

Mark A. Merritt, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States District

M.D. Reed; Charles Lanehart, * Court for the Eastern District of

* Arkansas.

Appellants, *

*

Arkansas Department of Correction, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: April 16, 1997

Filed: July 15, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Defendants appeal the district court's denial of their motion for summary

judgment based on qualified immunity in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We reverse.

I. BACKGROUND

In November 1992, Mark Merritt filled out a pre-employment questionnaire with

the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) stating that he could perform the job

functions of a correctional officer. He was hired for a position with the ADC Varner

Unit and placed on probationary status while in training. At the ADC training

academy, Merritt informed an instructor that he could not run, jog, or jump, pursuant

to his doctor's orders. On December 15, 1992, Merritt was discharged from

employment for providing false information on his job questionnaire. He then sought

other employment. During his job search, Merritt alleges that prison officials informed

prospective employers of the reason for his termination as a correctional officer.

Merritt brought this section 1983 action against M.D. Reed, the former warden

of the Varner Unit; Charles Lanehart, the Varner Unit personnel officer; and the ADC.

Merritt alleged defendants violated his due process rights by terminating him from

employment as a correctional officer without giving him an opportunity to respond to

the charges, thereby affecting his good name within the employment community.1

Defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, arguing that

Merritt was not deprived of a liberty interest because there was no public disclosure of

the reason for his discharge. The motion was supported by Lanehart's affidavit stating

that, as a matter of policy, the ADC does not give reasons for an employee's

termination to prospective employers, even upon request from those employers. In

response, Merritt submitted evidence that defendants placed the reason for the

dismissal in his personnel file, and that a former ADC employee disclosed the reason

to a possible employer.

1

Merritt also brought an equal protection claim as to which the district court

granted summary judgment for all defendants. That dismissal was not appealed.

-2-

The district court granted summary judgment to ADC and the individual

defendants in their official capacities. The court denied summary judgment, however,

to defendants Reed and Lanehart in their individual capacities. Reed and Lanehart

appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

We review the district court's denial of qualified immunity de novo. Henderson

v. Baird, 29 F.3d 464, 467 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2584 (1995).

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violates

a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person

would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In considering

whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we must consider whether the

plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly

established at the time of the violation, and whether a reasonable official would have

known that the alleged action violated that right. Yowell v. Combs, 89 F.3d 542, 544

(8th Cir. 1996).

In this case, Merritt has failed to assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory

right.2 Merritt was entitled to procedural due process upon termination only if he was

deprived of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest. Shands v. City of

Kennett, 993 F.2d 1337, 1347 (8th Cir. 1993). Merritt asserts that he has a liberty

interest in his good name and reputation in the employment community and that

2

Ordinarily, denial of a motion for summary judgment would not be an

appealable order. Here, Reed and Lanehart assert the affirmative defense of qualified

immunity, making the district court ruling appealable on an interlocutory basis. Allison

v. Dep't of Corrections, 94 F.3d 494, 496 (8th Cir. 1996). The review, however,

involves the alternative inquiry of whether a constitutional or statutory claim is stated

and, if so, whether it is barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Siegert v. Gilley,

500 U.S. 226, 231 (1991). In this case, we terminate the action after the initial inquiry.

-3-

defendants deprived him of this interest without due process. See Codd v. Velger, 429

U.S. 624, 627 (1977). To establish a liberty interest in his good name, Merritt must

show that the reasons for discharge stigmatized him and that the defendants made the

reasons public. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 349 (1976); Hogue v. Clinton, 791

F.2d 1318, 1322 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing Payne v. Ballard, 761 F.2d 491, 493 (8th Cir.

1985)). On the facts of this case, Merritt failed to make such a showing.

Merritt presented no evidence to establish that either defendant Reed or Lanehart

made the reasons for his termination public. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159,

166 (1985) (to establish personal liability in section 1983 action, plaintiff must show

that defendant official caused deprivation of right). The uncontroverted facts of this

case show that neither Reed nor Lanehart informed any prospective employers of the

reasons for Merritt's termination. Merritt introduced a letter, signed by Jean Cannon,

a former ADC assistant personnel officer, and addressed to one of Merritt's prospective

employers, stating the reason for his dismissal. If publication occurred, it occurred at

the hands of Cannon, not those of Reed or Lanehart. Cf. Brockell v. Norton, 688 F.2d

588, 592 n.5 (8th Cir. 1982) (publication not attributable to defendants, and therefore,

insufficient to establish liberty interest). Because Merritt has failed to show that

defendants Reed or Lanehart published the reasons for his dismissal, he has failed to

establish a violation of a liberty interest. Consequently, the defendants' motion for

summary judgment should have been granted.3 See Waddell v. Forney, 108 F.3d 889,

3

Merritt points to cases from other circuits which found public disclosure where

the reasons for discharge were placed in the employee's personnel file and were likely

to be disclosed to prospective employers. E.g., Brandt v. Board of Coop. Educ. Servs.,

820 F.2d 41, 45 (2d Cir. 1987); Burris v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 713 F.2d 1087, 1092

(5th Cir. 1983). We have previously noted that a personnel file replete with

wrongdoing is "potentially sufficient" to satisfy the publication requirement if the

defendants made that file available to prospective employers. Hogue, 791 F.2d at 1322

n.7. In this case, however, Merritt has failed to make such a showing in light of

defendant Lanehart's testimony that as a matter of policy, discharge reasons are not

given to prospective employers.

-4-

896 (8th Cir. 1997) (reversing denial of summary judgment after qualified immunity

inquiry where plaintiff failed to show violation of constitutionally protected liberty

interest). We have considered the remainder of Merritt's arguments and find them to

be without merit.

III. CONCLUSION

Because the defendants did not violate a constitutionally protected right, we

reverse the district court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment.

A true copy.

ATTEST:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-5-