name-clearing hearing in Massachusetts

2021However, at the same time, it observed that there existed case law indicating that "a postdismissal name-clearing hearing sufficiently complies with due process requirements." Id., citing Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 157 (1974) and Stetson v. Bd. of Selectmen of Carlisle, 369 Mass. 755 , 764 n.14 (1976).

2021See Limerick v. Greenwald, 666 F.2d 733, 735 (1st Cir. 1981) ("To be meaningful, the name-clearing proceeding must be run by the same actor who diminished the plaintiffs' reputations."); Stetson, 369 Mass. at 764 (indicating board of selectman was responsible for conducting the name-clearing hearing); Fontana, 34 Mass. App. Ct. at 71.

2022Comm’n, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 63 , 67 (1993) (“A liberty interest [in a name-clearing hearing] arises where . . . a public [probationary] employee is discharged because of stigmatizing charges alleged by the employee to be false and which are disseminated to the public or are likely to be communicated to prospective employers.”).

2021The law is not entirely clear as to when such a hearing must take place[5] - but it appears clear that whenever it does take place, it is before the relevant appointing authority, not ------------------------------------- [5] In Fontana, a case relied upon by the Commissioner, the Appeals Court observed that "the question remains unanswered whether [an employee claiming violation of his liberty interest] is entitled to a predeprivation hearing, that is, 'a name-clearing hearing before any publication of defamatory statements in his personnel file or only afterward."' 34 Mass. App. Ct. at 69, q

2021However, at the same time, it observed that there existed case law indicating that "a postdismissal name-clearing hearing sufficiently complies with due process requirements." Id., citing Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 157 (1974) and Stetson v. Bd. of Selectmen of Carlisle, 369 Mass. 755 , 764 n.14 (1976).

1993See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 157 (1974), and Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle , 369 Mass at 764 n. 14, both indicating that a postdismissal name-clearing hearing sufficiently complies with due process requirements.

1993See Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573-574 ; Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 625 (1977); Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle , 369 Mass, at 762 (“dismissal because of immoral, illegal conduct . . . entitles the employee to ... a hearing . . . , if those charges have been or are likely to be disseminated either to members of the public or to prospective employers” [emphasis supplied]); Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 409 Mass, at 551 (contrasting action to challenge demotion with action brought “to obtain a postdemotion name-clearing hearing to protect the plaintiff’s ab

1993See Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573-574 ; Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 625 (1977); Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle, 369 Mass. at 762 ("dismissal because of immoral, illegal conduct ... entitles the employee to ... a hearing ..., if those charges have been or are likely to be disseminated either to members of the public or to prospective employers " [emphasis supplied]); Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 409 Mass. at 551 (contrasting action to challenge demotion with action brought "to obtain a postdemotion name-clearing hearing to protect the plaintiff's ability

2021The law is not entirely clear as to when such a hearing must take place[5] - but it appears clear that whenever it does take place, it is before the relevant appointing authority, not ------------------------------------- [5] In Fontana, a case relied upon by the Commissioner, the Appeals Court observed that "the question remains unanswered whether [an employee claiming violation of his liberty interest] is entitled to a predeprivation hearing, that is, 'a name-clearing hearing before any publication of defamatory statements in his personnel file or only afterward."' 34 Mass. App. Ct. at 69, q

1993While due process requires a pretermination hearing when a person having a property interest in his employment is terminated, Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985), the liberty interest here involved is the plaintiff's good name, and the question remains unanswered whether he is entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing, [5] that is, "a name-clearing hearing before any publication of defamatory statements in his personnel file or only afterward." Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 409 Mass. at 551 (emphasis supplied).

1993See Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573-574 ; Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 625 (1977); Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle , 369 Mass, at 762 (“dismissal because of immoral, illegal conduct . . . entitles the employee to ... a hearing . . . , if those charges have been or are likely to be disseminated either to members of the public or to prospective employers” [emphasis supplied]); Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 409 Mass, at 551 (contrasting action to challenge demotion with action brought “to obtain a postdemotion name-clearing hearing to protect the plaintiff’s ab

1993See Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573-574 ; Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 625 (1977); Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle, 369 Mass. at 762 ("dismissal because of immoral, illegal conduct ... entitles the employee to ... a hearing ..., if those charges have been or are likely to be disseminated either to members of the public or to prospective employers " [emphasis supplied]); Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 409 Mass. at 551 (contrasting action to challenge demotion with action brought "to obtain a postdemotion name-clearing hearing to protect the plaintiff's ability

1993See Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573-574 ; Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 625 (1977); Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle , 369 Mass, at 762 (“dismissal because of immoral, illegal conduct . . . entitles the employee to ... a hearing . . . , if those charges have been or are likely to be disseminated either to members of the public or to prospective employers” [emphasis supplied]); Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 409 Mass, at 551 (contrasting action to challenge demotion with action brought “to obtain a postdemotion name-clearing hearing to protect the plaintiff’s ab

1993See Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573-574 ; Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 625 (1977); Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle, 369 Mass. at 762 ("dismissal because of immoral, illegal conduct ... entitles the employee to ... a hearing ..., if those charges have been or are likely to be disseminated either to members of the public or to prospective employers " [emphasis supplied]); Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 409 Mass. at 551 (contrasting action to challenge demotion with action brought "to obtain a postdemotion name-clearing hearing to protect the plaintiff's ability

1993While due process requires a pretermination hearing when a person having a property interest in his employment is terminated, Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985), the liberty interest here involved is the plaintiff’s good name, and the question remains unanswered whether he is entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing, 5 that is, “a name-clearing hearing before any publication of defamatory statements in his personnel file or only afterward.” Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 409 Mass, at 551 (emphasis supplied).

1993While due process requires a pretermination hearing when a person having a property interest in his employment is terminated, Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985), the liberty interest here involved is the plaintiff's good name, and the question remains unanswered whether he is entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing, [5] that is, "a name-clearing hearing before any publication of defamatory statements in his personnel file or only afterward." Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 409 Mass. at 551 (emphasis supplied).

2021See Limerick v. Greenwald, 666 F.2d 733, 735 (1st Cir. 1981) ("To be meaningful, the name-clearing proceeding must be run by the same actor who diminished the plaintiffs' reputations."); Stetson, 369 Mass. at 764 (indicating board of selectman was responsible for conducting the name-clearing hearing); Fontana, 34 Mass. App. Ct. at 71.

2009According to the Supreme Court, "Where a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential.” Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 (1971).

2009See O’Connor v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 408 Mass. 324, 331 (1990) (no due process claim where plaintiff failed to request a name-clearing hearing).

2009See O’Connor v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 408 Mass. 324, 331 (1990) (no due process claim where plaintiff failed to request a name-clearing hearing).

2004The focus of § 41 is reflected in the fact that its protections are triggered only when “the reason for [the provisional employee’s] discharge is to become part of his employment record,” and the reason is related to his “personal character or work performance.” Before concluding that the civil service statutory scheme precludes operation of a bargained-for contractual provision, we have required that the conflicts between the civil service law and the CBA be “material.” Leominster v. International Bhd. of Police Officers, Local 338, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 121, 125 (1992) (Leominster).

1990See Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573 (1972); Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle, 369 Mass. 755, 762-763 (1976); Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 628, 634-635 (1990).

1990See Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573 (1972); Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle, 369 Mass. 755, 762-763 (1976); Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 628, 634-635 (1990).