Michael Erwine v. Churchill County, Nevada, et al.

Conflicting with Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 628 (1977), that a hearing is required if false and defamatory information is disseminated in connection with the termination of a public employee, the Ninth Circuit concluded in Blantz v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., Div. of Corr. Health Care Servs., 727 F.3d 917, 925 (9th Cir. 2013) that to state a viable “stigma-plus” procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must also show “effective exclusion” from a profession, meaning the stigmatizing statements effectively bar her from all employment in her field. The question presented is: To state a viable “stigma-plus” claim, must a plaintiff prove as a matter of fact “effective exclusion” from a chosen profession?