## Facts

- Dennis Goetz was hired by a public school district as a “cleaner” in October 1979.
- After a series of thefts at district offices, Goetz was arrested and charged with third-degree burglary.
- The district suspended Goetz on January 10, 1981.
- The school business executive requested a full written explanation of Goetz’s involvement; Goetz did not provide one.
- Goetz’s criminal-defense counsel asserted Goetz had been suspended without an opportunity to be heard and requested a hearing.
- The district terminated Goetz on January 22, 1981, citing his failure to provide the requested written explanation; no reasons were placed in his personnel file.
- Goetz alleged the circumstances of his discharge led to community belief that he had been caught stealing from the school, harming his reputation and employment prospects.
- Goetz sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of property and liberty interests without due process.

## Issues

1. Whether Goetz had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued public employment requiring a pre-termination hearing.
2. Whether the defendants deprived Goetz of a liberty interest by disseminating stigmatizing, allegedly false information in connection with his termination, thereby triggering a right to a name-clearing hearing.
3. Whether summary judgment and denial of discovery were proper where the source and dissemination of the alleged stigma were disputed.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment against Goetz on the property-interest claim.
- The court held Goetz lacked a protected property interest because his employment was effectively at will and the collective bargaining agreement’s procedural steps did not create substantive job security.
- The Second Circuit reversed summary judgment on the liberty-interest claim and remanded for discovery and further proceedings.
- The court held the record raised a factual dispute over whether defendants disseminated stigmatizing information linking Goetz to thefts in connection with his termination.
- On remand, the district court was instructed to reconsider discovery and the request to amend the complaint in light of the revived liberty-interest claim.

## Legal Principles

- A Fourteenth Amendment property interest in employment exists only where state law, contract, or similar authority creates a legitimate entitlement to continued employment, not merely a unilateral expectation.
- At-will public employees generally lack a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment absent a substantive limit on the employer’s power to discharge.
- Contractual or collectively bargained procedural protections (e.g., notice, an explanation, or steps preceding termination) do not, by themselves, create a constitutional property interest.
- A public employer implicates a liberty interest when, in connection with termination, it disseminates false and defamatory charges that seriously damage reputation or impose a stigma that forecloses future employment opportunities.
- When a liberty interest is plausibly alleged, due process may require an opportunity for a name-clearing hearing, and summary judgment is improper if material facts about dissemination and stigma cannot be resolved without discovery.

## Conclusion

The court held that an at-will school employee had no constitutional property interest in continued employment despite contractual procedures, but it required further fact development on whether the employee’s discharge was accompanied by employer-linked dissemination of stigmatizing accusations sufficient to support a due process liberty-interest claim.


Goetz v. Windsor Cent. Sch. Dist., 698 F.2d 606 (2d Cir. 1983)