Edinger v. Borough of Portland, 119 A.3d 1111

Appellant Robert Edinger, a municipal police officer and former Officer in Charge, was terminated by the Borough of Portland in October 2010 at a public special meeting.
The Borough announced publicly that Edinger failed to certify a speed timing device and that his employment was terminated for “dereliction of duty.”
The Express-Times reported the Borough’s statements about Edinger’s termination.
Edinger sued in state court alleging, among other claims, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 procedural due process claim for deprivation of liberty (reputation) without notice or hearing.
The trial court granted the Borough’s motion for summary judgment, adopting the analysis in Brown v. Montgomery County (unpublished) that employer statements alleging poor performance or malfeasance do not implicate constitutionally protected liberty interests. Edinger appealed.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, applying the Third Circuit–aligned rule that stigmatizing statements must allege more than improper performance (e.g., moral turpitude) to satisfy the “stigma plus” test.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Edinger)	Defendant's Argument (Borough)	Held
Whether the Borough’s public statements were sufficiently stigmatizing to implicate a liberty interest (stigma-plus test)	Statements that he failed to certify speed timing equipment implied he issued tickets in bad faith, alleging dishonesty/moral turpitude and thus satisfy stigma prong	Statements merely accused improper/inadequate performance (dereliction of duty) and did not impute moral turpitude	Held for Borough: statements concerned neglect/poor performance, not dishonesty or moral turpitude, so stigma prong not satisfied; summary judgment affirmed
Whether the trial court erred in relying on Brown (unpublished Third Circuit decision) vs. Conjour precedent	Brown is unpublished and not binding; court should follow Conjour, which denied summary judgment where termination statements impaired future employment	Brown’s analysis is persuasive and consistent with other Third Circuit and federal precedents treating mere performance allegations as non-stigmatizing	Held: Brown’s analysis is persuasive and supported by authority; court applied it and rejected Edinger’s Conjour argument

Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) (reputation-plus due process principle)
Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) (articulates stigma-plus test for reputation claims)
Conjour v. Whitehall Township, 850 F. Supp. 309 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (denied summary judgment where public termination statements arguably impaired future employment)
Mercer v. Cedar Rapids, 308 F.3d 840 (8th Cir. 2002) (statements about job performance do not, by themselves, implicate liberty interest)