Bradley M. Peterson v. Kristina M. Johnson, 87 F.4th 833

Bradley Peterson, a tenured Ohio State professor who retired in 2015, was granted emeritus status and later returned to Ohio State full-time while also working with outside research institutions.
In April 2020 multiple women filed sexual-harassment complaints; Ohio State investigated, interviewed Peterson, and later produced a report concluding he violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy.
Peterson alleges the report omitted or misstated his testimony, excluded exculpatory evidence, and that he was not warned he could lose emeritus status or given an opportunity to respond to a fourth complainant.
In May 2021 Ohio State’s President recommended revocation of Peterson’s emeritus status and the Board of Trustees accepted; Peterson alleges loss of emeritus status caused loss of outside positions, research programs, contracts, earnings, and reputation.
Peterson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a procedural-due-process violation; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plead a constitutionally protected property interest in emeritus status, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether emeritus status is a constitutionally protected property interest	Peterson: emeritus status (and "related benefits") was a legitimate entitlement necessary for his scholarship and standing	Ohio State: emeritus is an honorific without any specific, guaranteed pay or tangible benefits; policies do not create an entitlement	Court: No; complaint fails to allege a protected property interest in emeritus status
Whether revocation constituted a deprivation triggering due process when no pay/benefits from the university were lost	Peterson: revocation caused loss of outside positions, contracts, and earnings tied to his emeritus standing	Ohio State: alleged harms (lost outside opportunities) were not conferred by the university and the revocation produced no material change in his employment relationship with Ohio State	Court: No; absent loss of pay/tangible benefits conferred by the university, no protected property deprivation was pleaded
Whether reputational harm required a name-clearing hearing	Peterson: findings of sexual misconduct harmed his good name and required process	Ohio State: reputation-based liberty interest requires a request for a name-clearing hearing before asserting a due-process claim	Court: Peterson conceded he did not request such a hearing; claim on reputation fails

Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (establishes that property interests are defined by state law and require a legitimate claim of entitlement)
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (recognizes nonstatutory property interests arising from mutual understandings and practices)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (applies plausibility pleading standard to factual allegations)
Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2009) (framework for procedural-due-process elements)
Med Corp. v. City of Lima, 296 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2002) (discusses property and liberty interests and reputational claims)
Crosby v. Univ. of Ky., 863 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2017) (tenured professors do not automatically have property interest in administrative posts)
Jackson v. City of Columbus, 194 F.3d 737 (6th Cir. 1999) (no property interest where no loss of pay or benefits)
Quinn v. Shirey, 293 F.3d 315 (6th Cir. 2002) (liberty/reputation claim requires a denied request for a name-clearing hearing)
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (reputational injury alone does not give rise to a constitutional deprivation absent alteration of legal status)