The opinion of the court was delivered by: ALESIA
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Matt L. Rodriguez's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons discussed hereafter, Defendant's motion is granted.
Following the discharge, Olivieri applied for employment as a police or security officer with the Northwestern University Police Department, the University of Chicago Police Department, the DePaul University Security Police, and the University of Illinois at Chicago Police Department. Olivieri informed each of the prospective employers that he had been discharged by the Chicago Police Department because of an allegation of sexual harassment.
Olivieri's step-mother, Rose Olivieri -- a police officer --inquired into the possibility of her step-son's employment with the Federal Reserve Police Department, the Evanston Police Department, and the U.S. Marshal's Service. Rose informed each of the potential employers that Olivieri had been terminated due to allegations of sexual harassment.
To date, Olivieri has not been hired by any of the prospective employers.
Olivieri does not know whether Superintendent Rodriguez or any other employee of the Chicago Police Department discussed the sexual harassment allegations with the potential employers.
Olivieri brought a complaint against Superintendent Rodriguez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 premised on deprivations of his constitutionally protected Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest.
This matter is now before the Court on Superintendent Rodriguez's motion for summary judgment.
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT - STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c), summary judgment shall be granted if the record shows that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Black v. Henry Pratt Co., 778 F.2d 1278, 1281 (7th Cir. 1985). The moving party has the burden of providing proper documentary evidence to show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists when "there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986). Unquestionably, in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the evidence is to be taken in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142, 90 S. Ct. 1598 (1970). Once the moving party has met its burden, the opposing party must come forward with specific evidence, not mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, which demonstrates that there is a genuine issue for trial. Howland v. Kilquist, 833 F.2d 639 (7th Cir. 1987).
Olivieri brings two "independent" § 1983 claims premised on the deprivation of a liberty interest: (1) deprivation of an occupational liberty interest in one's post-employment reputation and (2) deprivation of a hearing prior to ...