Manuel Adams had an 18-year career with the Hanrahan Police Department (HPD) in Hanrahan, Louisiana, eventually reaching the rank of captain. He had an unblemished disciplinary record during his tenure with HPD. But that changed in October 2019, when HPD Chief of Police Robert Walker determined that Adams was guilty of numerous offenses, including: (1) conduct unbecoming an officer; (2) unsatisfactory performance; and (3) giving a false statement. As a classified civil service employee, Adams was entitled to 15 days to appeal the discipline.
Adams exercised his right to appeal a week after Walker’s charges. However, Walker had already emailed the Jefferson Parish District Attorney’s office (JPDA) to inform it of his disciplinary action against Adams. After communicating with Walker, JPDA placed Adams’ name on its witness notification list – otherwise known as the Giglio list. Adams alleged that an officer’s inclusion on the Giglio list is effectively “a death knell to a career in law enforcement.” Because the Giglio list is at JPDA’s discretion, a successful appeal by Adams would not force JPDA to remove his name from the list.
Adams sued the City, alleging, among other things, that it violated his procedural due process rights by placing him on the Giglio list before he had an opportunity to appeal his discipline.
The City moved to dismiss Adams’ claims. The district court denied the motion with regard to his due process claim, holding that Adams had a protected liberty interest in his occupation, and that, as alleged in his complaint, the processes provided to Adams were insufficient to protect his interests. “Ultimately, the district court viewed the case as one where Walker contrived an investigation against Adams, determined his guilt, and contacted JPDA intending to place his name on the Giglio list and end his career in law enforcement. Under that characterization, it determined that Adams successfully alleged a 14th Amendment violation under § 1983.” The City appealed.
Though the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court’s conclusion that Adams had a liberty interest in his career, it rejected the notion that Adams had been deprived of his occupational liberty, “And without the deprivation of a liberty interest, the City could not have violated Adams’ right to procedural due process.”
Adams’ claim that his right to work in a common occupation must “plead facts showing that the defendants effectively foreclosed him from practicing his chosen profession to show a deprivation.” Precedent held that Adams’ “liberty interest in pursuing a specific profession is only violated if he has been completely prevented from working in that field.” Adams was not “completely prevented” from working in his chosen career, so he was not deprived of a liberty interest. While it had been made more difficult, and the possibility of advancement had been limited, Adams’ career had not been ended by his placement on the Giglio list. Thus, the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court’s determination regarding § 1983 liability for the City, and Adams’ claim was dismissed.
Adams v. City of Harahan, 95 F.4th 908 (5th Cir., 2024).