Petitioner Troopers v. Superintendent of State Police, 47 N.Y.2d 454 (1979)

A public employee is not entitled to a due process hearing to clear their name unless the employer’s statements regarding the employee are both stigmatizing and disseminated and, even then, no hearing is required if the disseminated statement itself clears the employee of potentially stigmatizing conduct.

Summary

This case concerns whether state troopers reassigned from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation to uniformed duty were entitled to a due process hearing. The troopers claimed the reassignment implicated a property right and that statements made by State Police officials, reported in newspapers, stigmatized them. The New York Court of Appeals held that the troopers had no property right in their prior assignment and that the statements, while concerning them, did not create a stigma of constitutional proportions because the statements also cleared them of criminal wrongdoing, negating the need for a hearing.

Facts

Petitioners were state troopers assigned to the Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI). An investigation began into reports that some troopers were buying clothes from shoplifters and selling them for profit. Subsequently, the petitioners were reassigned to uniformed duty. Newspaper articles reported on the investigation and the reassignments. One article mentioned the investigation, and a second reported that three detectives in the Rochester area had been “demoted” for “using poor judgment in handling stolen merchandise.” This second article quoted the first deputy superintendent as saying there was no substantiation for criminal charges and that it was a case of “poor judgment—maybe stupid, but not criminal.”

Procedural History

The troopers sought a due process hearing, arguing their reassignment implicated a property right and that the statements in the press stigmatized them, thus violating their liberty interest. The Appellate Division ruled against the troopers. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the petitioners had a “property right” that entitled them to a due process hearing before reassignment?

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a hearing to clear their names of any stigma, in vindication of their “liberty interest,” based on statements made by State Police officials reported in newspaper articles?

Holding

1. No, because the regulations governing the troopers’ assignment stated that such appointments were “eligible for reassignment to the Uniform Force” and “during the pleasure of the Superintendent.”

2. No, because the statements, while concerning the troopers, also cleared them of criminal conduct and therefore did not create a stigma of constitutional proportions.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the troopers had no property right to their BCI assignment because the applicable regulations explicitly stated that such assignments were at the Superintendent’s pleasure. Therefore, no due process hearing was required prior to reassignment based on a property right.

Regarding the liberty interest, the court acknowledged that the newspaper articles, which referred to “demotions” for “using poor judgment in handling stolen merchandise,” were sufficiently connected to the petitioners (detectives reassigned in the relevant area) and disseminated to warrant a hearing if the language was stigmatizing. However, the court emphasized that a “stigma” hearing is required solely to provide the person an opportunity to clear their name.

The court found that because the deputy superintendent’s statement clarified that there was no criminal conduct, and the troopers’ retention in the uniformed force reinforced this, the statements did not create a stigma of constitutional proportions. The court stated, “When, as here, the statement as disseminated includes language which clears the employee of conduct that could be regarded as stigmatizing, there is no constitutional necessity for a hearing.” While the troopers might object to the “bad judgment” characterization, the court held this was not a stigma of constitutional significance.

The court further addressed the potential for stigmatizing information in personnel records. It acknowledged that such entries could, in some circumstances, require a hearing even without immediate dissemination. However, in this case, there was no showing that the reason for reassignment appeared in the troopers’ files until they requested reasons, nor was there evidence about the accessibility of this information to future employers. Furthermore, the court reiterated that the file material, considered as a whole, did not constitute a stigma of constitutional proportions. The court distinguished this case from situations where there were accusations of dishonesty, immorality or lack of professional competence that would bar one from future employment opportunities.