2019 Ohio 3609
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background:
- Neal was a volunteer "special deputy" with the Allen County Sheriff’s Office (ACSOMPU) and also worked as a security officer at Lima Memorial Hospital (LMH) under an ACSO–LMH arrangement.
- On March 20, 2017 the sheriff, Matthew Treglia, terminated Neal’s special-deputy appointment by letter and copied several supervisors, including LMH security supervisor Dean McCombs.
- LMH terminated Neal’s employment three days later; Neal sued Treglia and McCombs asserting claims for deprivation of due-process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, tortious interference with a business relationship, and (against McCombs) defamation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Treglia on the § 1983 and tortious-interference claims; granted partial summary judgment for McCombs (dismissing the § 1983 claim) and later Neal settled and dismissed remaining claims against McCombs.
- Neal appealed, arguing (1) he had a protected property or liberty interest in his special-deputy appointment and (2) Treglia intentionally interfered with his employment relationship with LMH.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Neal had a property interest in his special-deputy appointment entitling him to procedural due process under § 1983 | Neal: his commission was a protectable entitlement giving rise to a due-process hearing before termination | Treglia: the special-deputy role was a volunteer/at-pleasure appointment with no statutory property right | Held: No property interest. Special deputies are volunteers/at-pleasure appointees; Ohio law does not create a protected entitlement, so no procedural-due-process violation. |
| Whether Neal suffered a liberty (reputation) interest (stigma-plus) supporting a § 1983 claim | Neal: the termination notice to LMH contained untrue stigmatizing content and damaged his reputation and future employment prospects | Treglia: the notice did not cause a stigmatizing, publicly disseminated, false charge that foreclosed his occupation; Neal offered no evidence of lost opportunities beyond subjective shame | Held: No stigma-plus. Neal produced no evidence that the notice caused termination or foreclosed future employment; no constitutional liberty deprivation. |
| Whether Treglia tortiously interfered with Neal’s business relationship with LMH | Neal: Treglia’s notice intentionally caused LMH to terminate his security job, supporting tortious interference | Treglia: as appointing authority, he lawfully revoked the special-deputy commission; any employment consequence flowed from loss of required commission, not wrongful interference | Held: No tortious interference. Treglia lawfully ended the at-pleasure appointment, which rendered Neal unqualified for the LMH position; no genuine issue that the notice unlawfully caused the termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (establishing § 1983 liability framework)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 principles)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (procedural due-process § 1983 claims)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (distinguishing negligence from due-process violations)
- Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interests defined by state law)
- Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (procedural due-process analysis for public employment)
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (benefits not constituting protected entitlements when discretionary)
- Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (stigma-plus/liberty interest doctrine)
- Versarge v. Township of Clinton, 984 F.2d 1359 (volunteers lack protected property interests)
- Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405 (same—no due-process right for volunteer positions)
- Chilingirian v. Boris, 882 F.2d 200 (stigma-plus and reputation-related liberty claims)
- Tichon v. Harder, 438 F.2d 1396 (requirement of clear, substantial impact on reputation to show liberty deprivation)
- Brice v. Oregon, 111 Ohio App.3d 7 (Ohio case concluding volunteer public servants lack property interest)
- Cleveland Constr., Inc. v. Cincinnati, 118 Ohio St.3d 283 (discretionary governmental benefits not protected entitlements)
- State ex rel. Trimble v. State Bd. of Cosmetology, 50 Ohio St.2d 283 (Ohio discussion of reputation and property/liberty interests)