individual is merely hearing in Texas

2023Dist., 736 F.2d 243, 256 (5th Cir. 1984); see Rickert v. Meade, No. 06-20-00002-CV, 2020 WL 4354946 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana July 30, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). “[T]he process due such an individual is merely a hearing providing a public forum or opportunity to clear one’s name, not actual review of the decision to discharge the employee.” Hughes v. City of Garland, 204 F.3d 223, 226 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

2018To plead a claim based on the deprivation of a constitutional right to a name-clearing hearing, “a plaintiff must allege that [s]he was a public employee, that [s]he was discharged, that stigmatizing charges were made against [her] in connection with [her] discharge, that the charges were false, that the charges were made public, that [s]he requested a name-clearing hearing, and that the hearing was denied.” Id. “[T]he process due such an individual is merely a hearing providing a public forum or 24 opportunity to clear one’s name, not actual review of the decision to discharge the employee.”

2023“A party does not have a liberty interest in [her] reputation . . . unless [s]he can establish that the governmental employer’s charges against [her] rise to such a level that they create a ‘badge of infamy’ which destroys the claimant’s ability to take advantage of other employment opportunities.” Evans v. City of Dall., 861 F.2d 846, 851 (5th Cir. 1988); see Hughes, 204 F.3d at 226 ; Phelan v. Tex. Tech Univ., No. 07-07-0171-CV, 2008 WL 190741 , at *10 (Tex. App.— Amarillo Jan. 23, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“[A] liberty interest is affected only when a plaintiff is terminated for reason

2018“A party does not have a liberty interest in [her] reputation . . . unless [s]he can establish that the governmental employer’s charges against [her] rise to such a level that they create a ‘badge of infamy’ which destroys the claimant’s ability to take advantage of other employment opportunities.” Evans v. City of Dall., 861 F.2d 846, 851 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Hughes, 204 F.3d at 226 (“[A] constitutionally protected liberty interest is implicated only if an employee is discharged in a manner that creates a false and defamatory impression about him and thus stigmatizes him and forecloses h

2023Dist., 736 F.2d 243, 256 (5th Cir. 1984); see Rickert v. Meade, No. 06-20-00002-CV, 2020 WL 4354946 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana July 30, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). “[T]he process due such an individual is merely a hearing providing a public forum or opportunity to clear one’s name, not actual review of the decision to discharge the employee.” Hughes v. City of Garland, 204 F.3d 223, 226 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal citation and quotation omitted).