Kramer v. Cullinan, No. 14-36103 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying qualified immunity to defendant, the former-President of Southern Oregon University, in an action alleging that she violated plaintiff's liberty interest. Plaintiff, a university employee, alleged that defendant released stigmatizing information in the form of a letter in connection with his termination. The panel held that the district court's characterization of the letter's contents as stigmatizing was erroneous and thus defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. Furthermore, even if the content of the letter were stigmatizing, it was not clearly established law that charges other than fraud, dishonesty, and immorality would trigger the requirements of a name-clearing hearing. The panel remanded to the district court with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s order, on summary judgment, denying qualified immunity to Dr. Mary Cullinan, the former-President of Southern Oregon University, in an action filed by Ronald Kramer alleging that Dr. Cullinan violated his liberty interest by releasing stigmatizing information in connection with his termination. The panel held that Dr. Cullinan was entitled to qualified immunity. The panel held that a letter drafted by counsel concerning Kramer’s employment, which became publicly available, did not contain stigmatizing content. The panel held that the letter stopped short of actually imputing to Kramer any bad faith, willful misconduct, intentional acts, waste or fraud, and the letter did not reference the type of stigmatizing statements that this Circuit has held to be actionable, i.e., those accusing terminated employees of dishonesty, immorality and the like. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Kramer, the panel concluded that the district court’s characterization of the letter’s contents as stigmatizing was erroneous, and that Dr. Cullinan was entitled to qualified immunity. The panel further held that even if the content were stigmatizing, it was not clearly established law that charges other than fraud, dishonesty, and immorality would trigger the requirements of a name-clearing hearing. The panel therefore reversed the district court’s decision denying qualified immunity and remanded with KRAMER V. CULLINAN 3 directions to enter summary judgment in favor of Dr. Cullinan.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.