## Facts

- Sharon Johnson was a LaVerkin City police officer and a member of the Washington County SWAT team.
- During an out-of-town police training seminar partly funded by the City, Johnson engaged in a consensual extramarital affair with an officer from another department.
- Johnson’s husband, upset that the City did not discipline her, falsely accused her of also having an affair with the police chief, Kim Seegmiller.
- The City suspended Johnson and Seegmiller from public employment; the accusation generated adverse publicity for the police department.
- After learning the accusation was unfounded, the City ended the suspension.
- The City later issued Johnson a private, oral reprimand, concluding her conduct violated the department’s Code of Ethics by allowing private conduct to interfere with her duties and reflect unfavorably on the department.
- Because the reprimand affected her “good standing,” Johnson could not regain her SWAT position and eventually resigned.
- Johnson and Seegmiller sued the City and the city manager under § 1983 and state law; on appeal, Johnson pursued only substantive due process (sexual privacy) and Utah negligence (confidentiality) theories.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality’s private reprimand of a police officer for consensual, off-duty extramarital sexual conduct connected to a work-related conference infringes a fundamental liberty interest in sexual privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
2. Whether the City was liable under Utah negligence law for allegedly breaching a duty to keep Johnson’s employment-related information confidential.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City and city manager on both claims.
- The court held Johnson failed to show the reprimand infringed a fundamental right; the City’s action satisfied rational-basis review as reasonably related to police department policies.
- The court held Johnson failed to establish a cognizable confidentiality duty (and related negligence elements) under Utah law.

## Legal Principles

- Substantive due process protects only those liberties that are deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition and implicit in ordered liberty; absent such a showing, government action is reviewed under rational-basis review.
- Lawrence v. Texas does not, by itself, establish a broad fundamental right shielding all private, consensual adult sexual conduct from non-criminal consequences imposed by a public employer.
- A police department may impose non-public, internal discipline for off-duty conduct when the discipline is reasonably related to legitimate departmental interests such as operational integrity, adherence to ethics rules, and public confidence.
- Collateral employment effects (e.g., loss of specialized assignment eligibility) do not convert an otherwise permissible reprimand into a substantive due process violation without an identified protected liberty or property interest.
- Under Utah negligence law, a plaintiff must identify a legally recognized duty; absent a statutory or common-law duty of confidentiality and a supported breach, a confidentiality-based negligence claim fails.

## Conclusion

The court held that a private, employment-related reprimand of a police officer for off-duty extramarital conduct occurring in connection with a work-funded training event did not violate substantive due process because no fundamental right was infringed and the reprimand was rationally related to legitimate departmental policies; it also rejected a state-law negligence claim for lack of a cognizable confidentiality duty.


Seegmiller v. LaVerkin City, 528 F.3d 762 (10th Cir. 2008)