ÿWPCÊ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0DP 0J” 0TÞ 0^2 0h 0rø 0|j 0†æ 0l 1uü 0dq U>Õ U*U*= BgB)„DC­ AMð=žW D3õv~(vÓ¦ 0@y 0l¹ AO%Æt 0D: D/~ B­˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- fEghDijDklDm«n«oÓ€·‚^!úÿÿú, ú3|xz(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òNovember€4,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ”Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSince€our€disposition€of€this€issue€resolves€the€case,€we€pretermit€the€other€issues€raisedÏby€the€parties.€€With€respect€to€Roweððs€argument€in€his€brief€to€this€Court€that€the€Boardððs€policyÏand€€refusal€to€consider€him€for€future€employment€violates€substantive€due€process€we€note€thatÏother€courts€considering€the€issue€have€declined€to€extend€substantive€due€process€protections€toÏproperty€interests€in€employment€or€to€ð ðoccupational€liberty€interests.ðð€€òòZorzi€v.County€of€Putnamóó,Ï30€F.3d€885,€894„95€(7th€Cir.€1994);€òòMcKinney€v.€Pateóó,€20€F.3d€1550,€1560€(11th€Cir.€1994);ÏòòSutton€v.€Cleveland€Board€of€Educationóó,€958€F.2d€1339,€1350„51€(6th€Cir.€1992);€òòReinhart€v.ÏCity€of€Maryland€Heightsóó,€930€F.Supp.€410,€413€(E.D.€Mo.€1996).Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ , ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€"ԛрÑÑ7€µfXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€##X°d&Ӝـ€ÙßL€'(&;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURTÏOF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFORÏPUBLICATIONóóÌÌLEONARD€L.€ROWE,à àà àà à)à àœò òFiled:ó ó€November€4,€1996›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€R.€Vann€Owens,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àChancellorÌBOARD€OF€EDUCATION€of€theà àà à)à àÌCITY€OF€CHATTANOOGA;à àà à)Ìand€DR.€HARRY€REYNOLDS,à àà à)ÌSUPERINTENDENT€of€SCHOOLSà à)Ìof€the€CITY€OF€CHATTANOOGA,à à)ÌTENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03„S01„9603„CV„00033Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌòòÌÌFOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEóó:à àòòà àFOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:óóÌÌRichard€T.€Klingerà àà àà àà àRandall€L.€NelsonÌKennedy,€Fulton,€Koontz€&€Farinashà àCity€of€Chattanooga,€City€AttorneyÌChattanooga,€Tennessee€à àà àà àChattanooga,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€A.€McMahan€&à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKenneth€O.€Fritz,€Special€CounselÌà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TennesseeÌÌÌà àà àà àòòFOR€AMICUS€CURIAE€DON€LOFTISóóÌà à€€€€òòSUPERINTENDENT€OF€SCHOOLS,€HAMILTON€COUNTYóó:ÌÌà àà à€€€à àWilliam€E.€Godbold,€III€&€D.€Scott€BennettÌà àà à€€€€€à àChattanooga,€Tennesseeà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€"„Ôà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ€"XÔÌÌÌÌTRIAL€COURT€ANDÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€REVERSED.à àà àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.€ÇØ ØÓ&€##XÐd&ÓÓÓà àThe€Board€of€Education€of€the€City€of€Chattanooga€and€Dr.€HarryÏReynolds,€Superintendent€of€Chattanooga€schools,€appeal€from€the€Court€ofÏAppealsðð€decision€finding€that€Leonard€L.€Rowe€was€deprived€of€liberty€withoutÏdue€process€of€law€by€a€Board€policy€which€renders€any€employee€previouslyÏterminated€ð ðfor€cause,€inefficiency,€or€immoralityðð€ineligible€for€future€employmentÏwithin€the€Chattanooga€school€system.€€The€primary€issue€for€our€review€isÏwhether€adoption€of€Board€policy€4117.5€deprived€Rowe€of€a€constitutionallyÏprotected€property€or€liberty€interest€to€which€the€requirements€of€procedural€dueÏprocess€apply.× ƒ) ××  ×€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,€we€conclude€that€due€process€is€notÏimplicated€because€the€Board€policy€did€not€deprive€Rowe€of€either€a€protectedÏproperty€or€liberty€interest.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€isÏreversed.ÌÌà@ àòòò òB€A€C€K€G€R€O€U€N€Dóóó óÌà àRowe€is€a€certified€and€licensed€school€teacher.€€In€addition,€he€has€twoÍmasterððs€degrees€and€is€certified€as€an€educational€specialist.€€He€€beganÏteaching€in€the€Chattanooga€school€system€in€1967,€but€was€denied€tenure€at€theÏend€of€the€1968„69€school€year.€€After€brief€service€in€the€military,€Rowe€returnedÏto€teaching€in€Chattanooga€and€was€granted€tenure€in€either€1972€or€1973.€€HeÏcontinued€teaching€in€the€Chattanooga€system€until€1980€when€he€wasÏdischarged€ð ðfor€cause,€including€insubordination,€and€inefficiency.ðð€€The€chargesÏagainst€Rowe€primarily€arose€from€his€conduct€during€and€after€a€discussion€withÏthe€principal€about€Roweððs€evaluation.€€Specifically,€Rowe€was€charged€withÏwalking€out€of€two€conferences€called€by€the€principal,€refusing€to€enter€intoÏdiscussion€with€the€principal,€and€stating€that€the€principal€had€not€been€truthfulÏabout€previous€events.€€After€a€hearing€before€the€Board,€Rowe€was€dismissed.€ÏRowe€appealed€the€dismissal,€but€the€Boardððs€decision€was€upheld€by€both€theÏChancellor€and€the€Court€of€Appeals.ÌÌà àBeginning€in€1986€or€1987,€Rowe€again€attempted€to€obtain€a€teaching€jobÏin€the€Chattanooga€school€system.€€He€was€placed€on€the€substitute€teacherððs€listÏin€1987€and€worked€on€a€part„time,€as€needed€basis,€approximately€one„half€ofÏthe€school€days€that€year.€€There€were€no€negative€occurrences€reported€as€aÏresult€of€his€employment,€and€Rowe€received€favorable€recommendations€for€fullÏtime€employment€from€the€principals€of€two€schools€where€he€taught.€€SometimeÍafter€the€school€year€ended,€however,€Reynolds,€the€new€superintendent€ofÏschools,€was€asked€by€Board€members€why€Roweððs€name€was€placed€on€theÏsubstitute€teacherððs€list€when€he€previously€had€been€discharged€for€cause€byÏthe€Board.€€Upon€verifying€Roweððs€prior€for€cause€dismissal,€Reynolds€directedÏthat€Roweððs€name€be€removed€from€the€substitute€teacherððs€list.ÌÌà àDespite€his€removal€from€the€substitute€teacherððs€roster,€Rowe€continuedÏto€apply€for€full„time,€permanent€employment€within€the€Chattanooga€schoolÏsystem.€When€his€efforts€proved€unsuccessful,€Rowe€filed€a€complaint€with€theÏCity€of€Chattanooga€Human€Rights€and€Human€Relations€Commission€in€1990,Ïalleging€that€the€Board€had€discriminated€against€him€on€the€basis€of€race€byÏremoving€his€name€from€the€substitute€teacherððs€list€and€by€hiring€applicants€forÏtwo€vacant€principal€positions€for€which€he€had€applied.€€After€a€full€investigationÏand€a€hearing,€the€Commission€concluded€that€Rowe€had€failed€to€establishÏracial€discrimination,€but€recommended€that€the€Board€adopt€a€uniform€policy€toÏaddress€ð ðpreviously€dismissed€teachersðð€and€substitute€teachersðð€ability€to€obtainÏemployment€within€the€Chattanooga€Public€Schools.ðð€€In€response,€the€Board,€onÏApril€8,€1991,€adopted€policy€4117.5,€which€provides€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAny€employee€of€the€Board€of€Education€terminatedÍfor€cause,€inefficiency,€or€immorality€shall€not€beÏeligible€for€reemployment,€whether€at€the€same€orÏdifferent€level.€€Neither€shall€such€individuals€beÏeligible€for€employment€on€a€contract€basis,€includingÏserving€as€substitute€teacher.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThereafter,€Rowe€filed€a€complaint€pursuant€to€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€againstÏthe€Board€and€Reynolds,€alleging€that€their€refusal€to€consider€him€for€a€positionÏin€the€Chattanooga€school€system€violated€his€rights€under€the€FourteenthÏAmendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution.€€Rowe€sought€a€declaratoryÏjudgment€that€Board€policy€4117.5€was€an€unconstitutional€infringement€upon€hisÏproperty€and€liberty€rights€to€pursue€his€chosen€occupation.€€In€addition,€heÏsought€back€pay€from€the€time€the€Board€had€adopted€the€policy,€alleging€that€heÏwould€have€been€hired€had€the€policy€not€been€adopted.ÌÌà àFollowing€a€bench€trial,€the€chancellor€invalidated€the€policy,€but€refusedÏto€award€Rowe€any€other€relief,€concluding€there€was€no€proof€ð ðto€indicate€thatÏMr.€Rowe€would€have€been€rehired€but€for€this€policy€statement.ðð€€ÌÌà àRowe€appealed€from€this€judgment€to€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€That€courtÏaffirmed€the€chancellorððs€ruling€that€the€policy€is€unconstitutional,€concluding€thatÏthe€Boardððs€adoption€and€enforcement€of€the€policy€had€deprived€Rowe€of€hisÍconstitutionally€protected€liberty€interest€in€pursuing€his€chosen€occupationÏwithout€due€process€of€law.€€However,€the€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€Rowe€would€not€have€been€rehired€even€if€the€policy€had€notÏbeen€adopted.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€remanded€the€cause€to€the€trial€court€for€aÏhearing€to€determine€the€damages,€if€any,€to€which€the€plaintiff€is€entitled.ÌÌà àWe€granted€the€Board€and€Reynolds€permission€to€appeal€to€address€theÏparameters€of€the€property€and€liberty€interests€which€are€protected€by€theÏFourteenth€Amendmentððs€guarantee€of€due€process.€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,Ïwe€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals.ÌÌà@ àòòò òPROCEDURAL€DUE€PROCESSóóó óÌà àSection€1983€of€Title€42,€U.S.C.,€ð ðprovides€a€remedy€for€the€deprivations€ofÏrights€secured€by€the€Constitution€and€laws€of€the€United€States.ðð€€òòLugar€v.ÏEdmondson€Oil€Co.,€Inc.óó,€457€U.S.€922,€924,€102€S.Ct.€2744,€2747,€73€L.Ed.2dÏ482€(1982).€€In€this€case,€Rowe€alleged€that€Board€policy€4117.5€violated€hisÏrights€under€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€which€protects€individuals€againstÏgovernment€deprivations€of€ð ðlife,€liberty€or€property€without€due€process€of€law€.€.€.Ï.ðð€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€XIV,€ðð€1.€€A€section€1983€action€based€upon€proceduralÏdue€process€thus€has€three€elements:€(1)€a€liberty€or€property€interest€protectedÍby€the€Constitution;€(2)€a€deprivation€of€the€interest€by€the€government;€and€(3)Ïlack€of€process.€€òòPortman€v.€County€of€Santa€Claraóó,€995€F.2d€898,€904€(9th€Cir.Ï1993).€€In€addressing€a€claim€of€an€unconstitutional€denial€of€procedural€dueÏprocess,€we€apply€a€two„step€analysis.€€Initially,€we€must€determine€whetherÏRoweððs€interest€rises€to€the€level€of€a€constitutionally€protected€liberty€or€propertyÏinterest.€€If€there€is€a€constitutionally€protected€interest,€then€the€second€step€is€toÏweigh€the€competing€interests€of€the€plaintiff€and€government€to€determine€whatÏprocess€is€due€and€whether€deprivation€has€occurred.€€€òòBoard€of€Regents€of€StateÏColleges€v.€Rothóó,€408€U.S.€564,€569„70,€92€S.Ct.€2701,€2705,€33€L.Ed.2d€548Ï(1972).€€Rowe€contends€that€the€defendants€violated€his€ð ðpropertyðð€and€ð ðlibertyððÏinterests,€embodied€in€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment,€toÏpursue€his€chosen€occupation€and€profession€without€arbitrary€governmentalÏinterference.ÌÌà@ àòòò òA.€Property€Interestóóó óÌà àThe€Fourteenth€Amendmentððs€procedural€protection€of€propertyÏsafeguards€the€security€of€interests€that€a€person€has€already€acquired€in€specificÏbenefits.€€òòRothóó,€408€U.S.€at€576,€92€S.Ct.€at€2708.€€Property€interests€are€notÏcreated€by€the€federal€constitution.€€Instead,€they€are€created€and€defined€ð ðbyÏexisting€rules€or€understandings€that€stem€from€an€independent€source€such€asÍstate€law.ðð€€òòRothóó,€408€U.S.€at€577,€92€S.Ct.€2709.€To€be€entitled€to€procedural€dueÏprocess€protection,€a€property€interest€must€be€more€than€a€ð ðunilateralÏexpectationðð€or€an€ð ðabstract€need€or€desire.ðð€€It€must€be€a€ð ðlegitimate€claim€ofÏentitlementðð€to€a€specific€benefit.€€òòIdóó.€€Indeed€it€is€the€purpose€of€the€ancientÏinstitution€of€property€to€protect€those€expectations€upon€which€people€rely€inÏtheir€daily€lives.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àUnder€Tennessee€law,€teachers€who€have€been€granted€tenure€have€aÏconstitutionally€protected€property€interest€in€continued€employment€which€canÏnot€be€extinguished€unless€the€teacher€is€afforded€procedural€due€process.€ÏòòWilliams€v.€Pittardóó,€604€S.W.2d€845,€849€(Tenn.€1980);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€49„5„511€(1996).€€Substitute€teachers€are€not€tenured,€however,€and€have€noÏð ðlegitimate€claim€of€entitlementðð€to€continued€employment€sufficient€to€give€rise€toÏa€property€interest.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€49„5„503€(1996).€€Moreover,€RoweððsÏattempts€to€attain€future€employment€with€the€Chattanooga€system€does€not€riseÏto€the€level€of€a€ð ðlegitimate€claim€of€entitlement,ðð€but€is€more€accurately€describedÏas€a€ð ðunilateral€expectationðð€or€an€ð ðabstract€need€or€desireðð€for€it.€€€Therefore,ÏRowe€has€failed€to€establish€that€he€was€deprived€of€a€constitutionally€protectedÏproperty€interest€by€the€adoption€of€policy€4117.5€or€his€removal€from€theÏsubstitute€teachersðð€roster.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òB.€Liberty€Interestóóó óÌà àWe€next€consider€whether€Rowe€was€deprived€of€a€constitutionallyÏprotected€liberty€interest€without€due€process€of€law€by€the€adoption€of€policyÏ4117.5.€€The€concept€of€liberty€in€Fourteenth€Amendment€jurisprudence€includesÏthe€ð ðliberty€to€engage€in€any€of€the€common€occupations€of€life€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòRothóó,€408ÏU.S.€at€572,€92€S.Ct.€at€2707.€€In€òòRothóó,€a€non„tenured€teacher€at€a€state€universityÏalleged€his€due€process€rights€were€violated€when€the€school€failed€to€provideÏhim€with€a€statement€of€reasons€or€a€hearing€when€it€declined€to€renew€his€one„year€contract.€€The€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€a€simple€refusal€to€rehire,Ïwithout€more,€does€not€infringe€upon€a€liberty€interest€and€trigger€due€process.€€InÏso€holding,€however,€the€òòRothóó€court€discussed€those€situations€in€which€a€libertyÏinterest€might€be€implicated€by€unfavorable€employment€action.ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€State,€in€declining€to€rehire€the€respondent,€didÏnot€make€any€charge€against€him€that€might€seriouslyÏdamage€his€standing€and€associations€in€theÏcommunity.€€It€did€not€base€the€nonrenewal€of€hisÏcontract€on€a€charge,€for€example,€that€he€had€beenÏguilty€of€dishonesty€or€immorality.€€Had€it€done€so,€thisÏwould€be€a€different€case.€€For€where€a€personððs€goodÏname,€reputation,€honor€or€integrity€is€at€stakeÏbecause€of€what€the€government€is€doing€to€him,Ínotice€and€an€opportunity€to€be€heard€are€essential.€€InÏsuch€a€case,€due€process€would€accord€an€opportunityÏto€refute€the€charge€before€University€officials.€€In€theÏpresent€case,€however,€there€is€no€suggestionÏwhatever€that€the€respondentððs€good€name,Ïreputation,€honor,€or€integrity€is€at€stake.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àSimilarly,€there€is€no€suggestion€that€the€State,Ïin€declining€to€re„employ€the€respondent,€imposed€onÏhim€a€stigma€or€other€disability€that€foreclosed€hisÏfreedom€to€take€advantage€of€other€employmentÏopportunities.€€The€State,€for€example,€did€not€invokeÏany€regulations€to€bar€the€respondent€from€all€otherÏpublic€employment€in€state€universities.€€Had€it€doneÏso,€this,€again,€would€be€a€different€case,€for€to€beÏdeprived€not€only€of€present€government€employmentÏbut€of€future€opportunity€for€it€certainly€is€no€smallÏinjury.€.€.€.€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÓÓòòRothóó,€408€U.S.€at€573„74,€92€S.Ct.€2707€(footnotes,€internal€citations,€andÏquotations€omitted).ÌÌà àòòRothððsóó€general€outline€of€factual€circumstances€giving€rise€to€a€libertyÏinterest€has€been€further€developed€in€a€series€of€subsequent€cases€beginningÏwith€òòPaul€v.€Davisóó,€424€U.S.€693,€96€S.Ct.€1155,€47€L.Ed.2d€405€(1976).€€In€thatÏcase,€the€Court€held€that€injury€to€reputation,€standing€alone,€does€not€implicate€aÏliberty€interest€protected€by€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€€Rather,€the€òòPaulóó€courtÏexplained€that€an€actionable€liberty€interest€deprivation€requires€the€loss,Íinfringement€or€denial€of€a€governmental€right€or€benefit€previously€enjoyed,Ïòòcoupledóó€òòwithóó€alleged€defamatory€communications€by€government€officials€whichÏhave€a€stigmatizing€effect.€€òòPaulóó,€424€U.S.€at€710„12,€96€S.Ct.€at€1165.€€Later€thatÏsame€year,€the€Court€held€that€no€liberty€interest€deprivation€occurs€unless€theÏalleged€defamatory€communications€are€made€public€and€the€plaintiff€allegesÏthat€the€defamatory€communication€is€substantially€false.€€òòBishop€v.€Woodóó,€426ÏU.S.€341,€349,€96€S.Ct.€2074,€2079,€48€L.Ed.2d€684€(1976);€òòCodd€v.€Velgeróó,€429ÏU.S.€624,€97€S.Ct.€882,€51€L.Ed.2d€92€(1977).€€Most€recently,€in€òòSiegert€v.€Gilleyóó,Ï500€U.S.€226,€111€S.Ct.€1789,€114€L.Ed.2d€277€(1991),€the€Court€refused€toÏrecognize€a€protected€liberty€interest€in€favor€of€a€clinical€psychologist€whoÏresigned€from€employment€at€a€federal€hospital€and€who,€three€weeks€later,€wasÏthe€subject€of€an€extremely€negative€employment€reference.€€Even€though€theÏnegative€reference€foreclosed€employment€positions€at€other€federal€facilities,€theÏCourt€refused€to€recognize€the€loss€as€a€protected€liberty€interest€because€theÏalleged€defamation€was€not€uttered€incident€to€the€termination€of€the€plaintiffððsÏemployment,€but€allegedly€occurred€several€weeks€after€his€voluntaryÏresignation.€€òòSiegertóó,€500€U.S.€at€234,€111€S.Ct.€at€1794.€ÌÌà àFrom€the€foregoing€cases€it€is€clear€that€a€plaintiff€claiming€a€liberty€interestÏdeprivation€must€allege€a€loss,€infringement,€or€denial€of€a€governmental€right€orÍbenefit€previously€enjoyed,€òòcoupledóó€òòwithóó€published€defamatory€communicationsÏby€government€officials€in€connection€with€the€loss,€infringement€or€denial€of€theÏright€or€benefit.€€In€addition,€a€plaintiff€must€allege€both€that€the€defamatoryÏcommunications€are€substantially€false€and€that€they€have€such€an€extensiveÏstigmatizing€effect€upon€plaintiffððs€standing€and€associations€in€the€communityÏthat€future€employment€opportunities€are€foreclosed.€€òòÌÌà àóóApplying€that€test€to€the€facts€in€this€case,€it€is€clear€that€Rowe€failed€toÏestablish€a€liberty€interest€deprivation.€€Assuming€that€Board€policy€4117.5Ïdenies€to€Rowe€a€governmental€right€previously€enjoyed€„„€the€right€to€apply€forÏemployment€within€the€Chattanooga€City€school€system„„€Rowe€does€not€allegeÏthat€the€Board€or€Reynolds€or€any€other€government€official€publishedÏsubstantially€false€defamatory€communications€about€him€in€connection€with€theÏdenial€of€that€right€which€resulted€in€foreclosure€of€future€employmentÏopportunities.€€For€example,€Rowe€does€not€allege€that€the€Board€or€Reynolds,€inÏremoving€his€name€from€the€substitute€teacherððs€list€and€adopting€the€policyÏrendering€him€ineligible€for€future€employment€within€the€Chattanooga€city€schoolÏsystem,€leveled€false€charges€of€dishonesty€or€immorality€against€him.€€Had€suchÏan€allegation€been€present,€then€due€process€would€accord€to€Rowe€notice€and€aÏhearing€in€which€he€would€be€given€the€opportunity€to€ð ðclear€his€name.ðð€€òòRothóó,Í408€U.S.€at€573,€n.€12,€92€S.Ct.€at€2707,€n.€12;€òòCoddóó,€429€U.S.€at€627,€97€S.Ct.€atÏ884.ÌÌà àHere,€however,€Rowe€asserts€only€that€the€Board€and€Reynolds€removedÏhis€name€from€the€substitute€teacherððs€list€and€refused€to€consider€him€for€futureÏemployment€within€the€Chattanooga€school€system€because€he€previously€hadÏbeen€dismissed€ð ðfor€cause,€including€insubordination,€and€inefficiency.ðð€€RoweÏhas€failed€to€allege€that€the€reasons€given€by€the€Board€for€his€removal€andÏineligibility€for€future€employment€were€defamatory€and€substantially€false.€€RoweÏdoes€not€assert€that€the€description€of€his€prior€dismissal€is€inaccurate.€ÏNonetheless,€such€an€allegation€would€not€salvage€Roweððs€claim€because€libertyÏinterests€are€not€implicated€by€allegations€of€improper€or€inadequateÏperformance.€€òòJoelson€v.€United€Statesóó,€86€F.3d€1413,€1420„21€(6th€Cir.€1996);ÏòòGregory€v.€Huntóó,€24€F.3d€781,€788€(6th€Cir.€1994);€òòWheaton€v.€Webb„Petettóó,€931ÏF.2d€613,€617€(9th€Cir.€1991).€To€implicate€liberty€interests,€the€defamatoryÏgovernmental€communication€must€stigmatize€or€otherwise€burden€the€plaintiff€soÏthat€he€is€not€able€to€take€advantage€of€other€employment€opportunities.€òòJoelsonóó,Ï86€F.3d€at€1421;€òòPortmanóó,€995€F.2d€at€907.€€A€charge€that€merely€makes€aÏplaintiff€less€attractive€to€other€employers€but€leaves€open€a€definite€range€ofÏopportunity€does€not€constitute€a€liberty€deprivation.€€òòRothóó,€408€U.S.€at€574,€n.€13,Í92€S.Ct.€at€2707,€n.€13.€€€Here,€Roweððs€removal€and€ineligibility€resulted€from€hisÏprior€dismissal€for€cause.€€€Neither€the€Boardððs€policy€nor€Reynolds€actionsÏstigmatized€Rowe€or€impaired€his€ability€to€seek€and€obtain€employment€outsideÏthe€Chattanooga€school€system.€€Rowe€was€not€deprived€of€a€constitutionallyÏprotected€liberty€either€by€his€removal€from€the€substitute€teachersðð€list€or€by€theÏBoardððs€adoption€of€policy€4117.5.€€He€can€not€now€complain€about€the€òòeffectóó€ofÏhis€prior€dismissal€for€cause,€a€proceeding€in€which€he€was€afforded€dueÏprocess,€on€his€future€employment€œopportunities.€€Finally,€the€Boardððs€policy,Ïwhich€is€designed€to€ensure€competent€educators€by€denying€employment€toÏpersons€previously€discharged€for€cause,€is€rational€and€does€not€violate€equalÏprotection.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àBecause€Rowe€has€failed€to€prove€the€existence€of€a€constitutionallyÏprotected€property€or€liberty€interest,€the€requirements€of€procedural€due€processÏdo€not€apply€in€this€case.€€Accordingly,€the€judgments€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€andÏthe€chancery€court€are€reversed€and€the€cause€dismissed.€€Costs€of€this€appealÏare€taxed€to€the€appellee,€Leonard€L.€Rowe.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFrank€F.€Drowota,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJusticeÌÌÌBirch,€C.€J.ÌAnderson,€Reid,€JJ