No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of former superintendents Fraser and Grier on plaintiff's remaining stigma-plus defamation claim, finding they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that disclosure alone would violate his rights or that the process was inadequate.
Kissner v. Loma Prieta Joint Union School District
What Happened
An employee named Kissner sued the school district and two former superintendents after being terminated. He claimed he was wrongfully fired and that the superintendents damaged his reputation by disclosing information about him.
What the Court Decided
The court sided with the superintendents. The judge ruled that the former superintendents did not violate Kissner's legal rights when they shared information about him. The court found that it was not clearly against the law for them to make these disclosures or to follow the process they used. As a result, the superintendents were protected from the lawsuit.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that employers generally have the right to disclose information about former employees without automatically facing legal consequences. Workers who believe their reputations were harmed through employer disclosures face a high legal bar to prove wrongdoing. Simply showing that damaging information was shared may not be enough—workers typically need to prove the disclosure violated clearly established legal rights or followed an inadequate process.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.