Lamar Cantrail Austin v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint where he did not “allege facts asserting a likelihood that prospective employers or members of the public would see the damaging information”
• explaining that because job applicants are not generally aware of what information from their personnel file is shared by past employers, requiring allegation of actual disclosure to a prospective employer would undermine the protected Fourteenth Amendment liberties
• delineating the two exclusive bases for pleading a likelihood of publication
• “[A]n employer need only grant a name-clearing hearing if it will make false damaging charges about a former employee available ....”
• plaintiff, a former city police officer, sued the City of Newport News and the police chief
• “A plain- tiff need not allege that his file has actually been disseminated to particu- lar prospective employers.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).