explaining that although many allegations in connection with an adverse employment action “might well interfere with ... opportunities for subsequent employment,” this does not mean they are “of such a serious and derogatory nature as to require due process protection.”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that although many allegations in connection with an adverse employment action “might well interfere with ... opportunities for subsequent employment,” this does not mean they are “of such a serious and derogatory nature as to require due process protection.”
- treating district court’s dismissal “for failure to state a claim over which it had jurisdiction” as “a summary judgment [when] both parties had presented affidavits and other materials ‘outside the pleading’, these were expressly considered by the court, and it is clear from the [court’s decision] that an intended, albeit unarticulated, ground for dismissal was Rule 12(b)(6)” (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b))
- finding the case to be one where the “government employee has no procedural due process rights apart from those which the agency has chosen to create by its own regulations... .”
- requiring public disclosure but indicating that records kept in files that might be provided to prospective employers pursuant to agency’s rule might qualify
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBB, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Although I concur in the remand of this case to the Agency, for compliance with procedural requirements, I do not agree that the record discloses any issue of material fact with respect to a violation of the appellant’s First Amendment rights. In my view the statements of Mr. Lauderbaugh, in which he expresses certain conclusions and opinions about the matter, do not raise the essential issue.