Legal Definitions - stigma-plus doctrine

The stigma-plus doctrine is a legal principle used in civil rights cases, particularly when an individual claims that a government official's defamatory statements have violated their constitutional rights.

Under this doctrine, merely suffering reputational harm or embarrassment (the "stigma") due to false statements made by a government official is generally not enough, on its own, to constitute a violation of a person's federal civil rights. For a civil rights claim to be actionable, the individual must demonstrate that the government official's defamatory statements also led to the loss of a significant "property interest" (the "plus"). This property interest could be something like continued employment in a government job, a professional license, or certain government benefits or contracts.

In essence, the doctrine requires both the reputational harm (stigma) and a tangible loss of a recognized right or benefit (plus) to elevate the issue to a federal civil rights concern, rather than just a state-law defamation claim.

Here are some examples illustrating the stigma-plus doctrine:

• Example 1: Government Employee Termination

  A city council publicly announces that a municipal finance director was fired due to "gross incompetence and fraudulent accounting practices," even though an internal investigation later cleared the director of any wrongdoing. As a direct result of these public statements, the director not only suffers severe damage to their professional reputation but also loses their government job and struggles to find new employment in the public sector.

  How this illustrates the doctrine: The public accusation of fraud and incompetence by the city council constitutes the "stigma" (reputational harm from a government official). The loss of the finance director's government job, which is considered a property interest, represents the "plus." Because both elements are present, the director might have a viable civil rights claim under the stigma-plus doctrine, arguing that the government's actions deprived them of their liberty interest in their reputation in conjunction with a property interest in their employment.

• Example 2: Professional License Revocation

  A state licensing board issues a press release falsely accusing a local architect of submitting fraudulent building plans for a public project. Following this public statement, and without proper due process, the board immediately revokes the architect's state-issued professional license, preventing them from practicing their profession. The architect's reputation is severely damaged, and they are unable to secure new clients.

  How this illustrates the doctrine: The false public accusation by the state licensing board is the "stigma." The revocation of the architect's professional license, which is a significant property interest necessary for their livelihood, is the "plus." With both the reputational harm and the deprivation of a professional license, the architect could potentially pursue a civil rights claim under the stigma-plus doctrine.

• Example 3: Loss of Business Opportunity

  A county commissioner publicly states during a televised meeting that a local construction company, "BuildRight Inc.," regularly uses substandard materials and has a history of bribing inspectors. These statements are false. Immediately after, the county cancels its existing contracts with BuildRight Inc. and bars the company from bidding on any future county projects for five years, effectively crippling their business.

  How this illustrates the doctrine: The county commissioner's false public statements about the company's integrity and practices represent the "stigma." The cancellation of existing contracts and the five-year ban from future county projects, which constitute a significant loss of business opportunity and a property interest for the company, serve as the "plus." This scenario demonstrates how the stigma-plus doctrine can apply to a business entity when government defamation leads to the loss of a valuable economic interest.