holding that a duty of good faith and fair dealing was not a property interest under the due process clause
How later courts described this case
- holding that a duty of good faith and fair dealing was not a property interest under the due process clause
- “This court has recognized that Board of Estimate approval of a development project will be based on political considerations and the climate of public opinion”
- “It is clear that where a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, a protectible liberty interest may be implicated that requires procedural due process in the form of a hearing to clear his name. However, damage to one’s reputation alone is not enough to implicate due process protections. Rather, something more, such as discharge from governmental employment, must accompany the alleged public defamation.”
- “[T]he Court *789 has carefully limited the rule to situations which involve contracts with tenure provisions and the like, or where a clearly implied promise of continued employment has been made. Courts have accordingly been wary of the consequences that might arise if section 1983 were expanded to encompass substantially all public contract rights.” (citations omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge,
concurring in result:
I am convinced that, on an objective basis, no reasonably competent official in Lip-per’s position would have concluded that the acts described in the complaint herein would violate Walentas’ constitutional rights. The constitutional status of public contractors vis-a-vis public employees was, and continues to be, in a state of uncertainty and flux. See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 83 , 94 S.Ct. 316, 325 , 38 L.Ed. 2d 274 (1973); S & D Maintenance Co., Inc. v. Goldin, 844 F.2d 962, 965-71 (2d Cir.1988); San Bernardino Physicians’ Services Medical Group, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino, 825 F.2d 1404, 1407-10 (9th Cir.1987); Horn v. Kean, 796 F.2d 668 , 671-79 and n. 10 (3d Cir.1986) (en banc). Accordingly, I concur in the result.