844 N.W.2d 741
Neb.2014Background
- Paul D. Potter, a University of Nebraska–Lincoln student and at‑will temporary employee in the university IT/help desk, was escorted from work by police on July 20, 2010 because of an outstanding bench warrant and was terminated the following week.
- Human Resources, after a threat assessment noting prior convictions and workplace behavior, prepared an internal safety e‑mail warning staff in two campus buildings to lock doors and call campus police if they saw Potter.
- The safety e‑mail went to about 27 employees in Miller and Agricultural Halls; Potter learned coworkers had been told to alert police if they saw him and that some had been told he might be armed.
- Potter sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (and state equivalents) claiming a 14th Amendment “stigma‑plus” due process violation — that the university’s warnings attached a badge of infamy and deprived him of his liberty interest in reputation without a name‑clearing hearing.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Board and two managers (Bockstadter and Losee); the managers asserted qualified immunity. Potter appealed and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Potter’s Argument | Regents/Managers’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Potter suffered a procedural‑due‑process "stigma‑plus" injury (stigmatizing statement + plus) | The safety warnings implied serious character defects (dangerousness) that stigmatized him and foreclosed employment opportunities, triggering due process | Warnings were safety‑focused, privileged, limited in dissemination, and did not seriously damage standing or foreclose employment | No genuine issue: Potter failed to show sufficient stigma or dissemination to meet "stigma‑plus"; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether statements were publicly disseminated enough to satisfy stigma‑plus public‑disclosure element | Dissemination to 27 employees and a director’s wife constituted public disclosure | Dissemination was limited to immediate campus work areas and posed little risk to community standing or future employment | Held insufficient — limited, context‑specific circulation did not show likely community‑wide harm |
| Whether statements were protected by qualified/conditional privilege | Implied charge of dangerousness is defamatory and not privileged | Communications were made in good faith, on a matter of safety, to interested parties and thus qualifiedly privileged | Held privileged as a matter of law absent actual malice; privilege defeats stigma‑plus claim |
| Whether managers are liable individually or entitled to qualified immunity | Managers personally participated in disseminating warnings and are liable under § 1983 | No clearly established constitutional right was violated; managers acted reasonably to protect campus safety and are entitled to qualified immunity | Qualified immunity applies; no clearly established stigma‑plus precedent for safety warnings, so managers protected |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state not a "person" under § 1983)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (supervisory liability requires personal involvement or causation)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (at‑will employment and property/liberty interests)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (reputation alone is not a due process liberty interest)
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due process balancing framework)