Codd v. Velger

Background

A patrolman who had been on probation with the New York City Police Department sued after he was dismissed and saw derogatory material placed in his personnel file. That file reportedly said he had once put a revolver to his head in an apparent suicide attempt. A private railroad police employer saw the file with the patrolman’s permission and did not hire him. The District Court found no stigma and ruled against the patrolman; the Court of Appeals reversed, and the case reached this Court for review.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Constitution required a hearing so the former officer could clear his name. The Court explained that the purpose of such a hearing is to allow a person to refute false charges. Because the officer never affirmatively alleged that the personnel report was substantially false, the Court said a hearing could not serve that purpose. Accepting the rule from earlier cases, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the District Court judgment, concluding the officer failed to prove a necessary element for a due‑process name‑clearing claim.

Real world impact

The decision makes it harder for people fired from public jobs to win federal hearings or damage awards for stigmatizing personnel records unless they challenge the accuracy of the record. The Court did not reach whether state law creates a separate property right to a hearing, so some related claims could return to lower courts. The opinion includes strong dissents arguing the government should bear the burden of proving truth.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Brennan and Stevens dissented, arguing the Court misplaced the burden and should have allowed further proceedings; Justice Blackmun concurred, noting the record did not suggest the file’s contents were unfit for employer review.