Clark v. Maurer, 86-2855
| Decision Date | 16 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2855,86-2855 |
| Citation | 824 F.2d 565 |
| Parties | Dwayne CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James MAURER, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Joseph J. Spingola, Joseph J. Spingola, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Judson H. Miner, Acting Corp. Counsel, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees.
Before CUDAHY, POSNER, and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs were among 24 City of Chicago garbagemen fired for bribing a city timekeeper to show them as working when they were not. The city announced the firing in a press release which described the garbagemen's conduct but did not name any of them. The press release was published in the Chicago Tribune, again without identification of the malefactors. The plaintiffs claim in this suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, which the district judge dismissed for failure to state a claim (see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)), that the firing deprived them of their occupational liberty by stigmatizing them as unfit for future employment.
When a public employer fires an employee to the accompaniment of public charges of serious wrongdoing, and the charges are false, the employer may be liable for having deprived the employee of liberty without due process of law. See, e.g., Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 97 S.Ct. 882, 51 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977) (per curiam). Here the charges, though public, did not identify the employees; nor is it alleged that the press release, even without naming any of the plaintiffs, would somehow have conveyed their identity to readers who knew them. This omission alone would require dismissal of the complaint under Hadley v. County of Du Page, 715 F.2d 1238, 1245 (7th Cir.1983), but in addition the complaint fails to allege that the charges are false, and indeed appears to concede their essential truth by stating that the plaintiffs were "intimidated" into bribing the timekeeper. The complaint does not succeed in alleging actionable defamation; a fortiori it does not allege a violation of the Constitution. See Perry v. FBI, 781 F.2d 1294, 1304-05 (7th Cir.1986) (concurring opinion).
The only substantial issue on appeal is raised by the defendants' request for attorney's fees and double costs under Fed.R.Civ.P. 38. Such a request is appropriate if the appeal is frivolous, even if the underlying suit is not. One way in which an appeal can be frivolous is if the appeal brief fails to identify any arguable error in the district court's decision. Reis v. Morrison, 807 F.2d 112, 113 (7th Cir.1986) (per curiam). The facts as known to a plaintiff and his counsel by reasonable investigation, and the law as known to them by reasonable research, might make a suit colorable when filed; but when the district court dismisses the suit, the plaintiff and his lawyer must reassess its merits. If having done so, they are unable to identify any respect in which the court erred but nevertheless appeal, the appeal is groundless and sanctions may be appropriate. Morris v. Jenkins, 819 F.2d 678, 681-82 (7th Cir.1987) (per curiam). That is this case. The appeal brief accuses the defendants of having committed a "defamatory act," but it does not explain how that is possible when the plaintiffs were not identified; and the brief argues not that the plaintiffs are innocent of fraud but that the fraud "remains unproved."
The failure of the appeal brief to confront the issue whether there can be liability for stigmatizing the plaintiffs when the press release and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GE Capital Mortg. Serv. v. Pinnacle Mortg. Inv.
...statements ... was established by the express and implicit allegations made by the plaintiff in his own pleading"); Clark v. Maurer, 824 F.2d 565, 566 (7th Cir.1987) (summary judgment proper where the complaint "appears to concede the statement's essential truth"). However, because the cour......
-
Alexis v. District of Columbia, Civ.A. 98-151(RMU).
...to go forward [with a group-defamation claim]." Anyanwu v. CBS, 887 F.Supp. 690, 692-93 (S.D.N.Y.1995); accord Clark v. Maurer, 824 F.2d 565, 566 (7th Cir.1987) (dismissing liberty-interest claim of 24 sanitation workers whose firing was announced in a press release, as "the charges, though......
-
Collins v. Bd. of Educ. of North Chicago Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 187
...devoid of any information regarding the public disclosure” of the statements was insufficient to state a claim); Clark v. Maurer, 824 F.2d 565, 567 (7th Cir.1987) (no injury until the damaging information is made public); Lashbrook v. Oerkfitz, 65 F.3d 1339, 1349 (7th Cir.1995) (“[T]he gove......
-
Lawlor v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi.
...the charges leveled against him were false, he cannot maintain an action for a deprivation of his occupational liberty. Clark v. Maurer, 824 F.2d 565, 566 (7th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal of occupational liberty due process claim where the complaint failed to allege that the charges aga......