## Facts

- Felix A. Olivieri was a probationary Chicago police officer assigned to training at the police academy.
- The Chicago Police Department discharged Olivieri during probation based on allegations that he sexually harassed female probationers.
- As a probationary employee, Olivieri lacked a state-law property interest in continued employment and was not entitled to a termination hearing on that basis.
- Olivieri claimed the stigmatizing basis for his discharge prevented him from obtaining future law-enforcement employment, constituting a deprivation of occupational liberty without due process.
- The summary-judgment record contained no evidence that the superintendent or the department disclosed the discharge reasons to prospective employers or otherwise made them public.

## Issues

1. Whether a discharged probationary police officer states a Due Process Clause liberty-interest claim when stigmatizing termination reasons allegedly impair future employment but were not shown to be published or disseminated by the government employer.
2. Whether inability to obtain future employment, without proof of government disclosure or blacklisting, creates a triable issue of occupational-liberty deprivation under § 1983.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Superintendent Rodriguez.
- The court held Olivieri failed to establish a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest because he produced no evidence that the government publicized or disseminated the stigmatizing grounds for discharge.
- The court rejected the argument that post-termination employment difficulties alone permit an inference of government blacklisting or actionable dissemination.
- The court noted the lack of developed proof (including failure to pursue discovery aimed at establishing dissemination) left no basis to proceed past summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation by a public official, standing alone, does not violate due process because reputational harm is not itself a protected liberty or property interest.
- A due process occupational-liberty claim requires “stigma-plus”: stigmatizing charges coupled with a state action that effectively forecloses employment opportunities, typically through publication, dissemination, or blacklisting.
- Internal, nonpublic reasons for termination—even if highly stigmatizing—do not constitute a constitutional deprivation of occupational liberty absent outward communication attributable to the government.
- At summary judgment, a plaintiff must produce evidence of government-initiated dissemination (or its functional equivalent); difficulty finding work is insufficient without that evidentiary link.

## Conclusion

Because Olivieri offered no evidence that the government made the sexual-harassment allegations public or communicated them to prospective employers, he could not show the type of stigma-plus deprivation required for a due process liberty-interest claim, and summary judgment for the superintendent was properly affirmed.


Olivieri v. Rodriguez, 122 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 1997)