Flavia Pichiorri, Ph.d. v. Arthur Burghes

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 25a0352p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FLAVIA PICHIORRI, PH.D.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ARTHUR BURGHES; BRANDON BIESIDADECKI;
JONATHAN DAVIS; JILL A. RAFAEL-FORTNEY; YUTONG
ZHAO; THOMAS HUND; LOREN WOLD; COLLEEN RUPP;
PETER MOHLER; OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF
TRUSTEES,
Defendants-Appellees.
┐
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
┘
No. 24-3918
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:23-cv-01442—Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., District Judge.
Decided and Filed: December 19, 2025
Before: WHITE, STRANCH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ON BRIEF: Renny J. Tyson, RENNY J. TYSON CO., LPA, Columbus, Ohio, William W.
Patmon, III, THE PATMON LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Michael H.
Carpenter, Timothy R. Bricker, Gregory R. Dick, CARPENTER LIPPS LLP, Columbus, Ohio,
for Appellees.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Dr. Flavia Pichiorri published many articles while working as
a research scientist at The Ohio State University. Years after Pichiorri left Ohio State, though, a
university committee found that she had committed research misconduct in some of these
>

-- 1 of 13 --

No. 24-3918 Pichiorri v. Burghes, et al. Page 2
articles. The committee later informed the relevant medical journals and her current employer of
the misconduct. Pichiorri disagreed with the committee’s findings and believed that its
disclosures to these third parties violated the Constitution. But the district court correctly found
that sovereign immunity shielded some of the university defendants from this suit and that
Pichiorri’s other due-process claims failed on the merits. We thus affirm the dismissal of
Pichiorri’s complaint.
I
Because the district court dismissed Dr. Pichiorri’s complaint at the outset of her case, we
must treat its well-pleaded factual allegations as true on appeal. See Blackwell v. Nocerini, 123
F.4th 479, 482, 486 (6th Cir. 2024). We thus describe the events using those allegations alone,
while recognizing that Pichiorri has yet to support the allegations with concrete evidence. See id.
Pichiorri’s career has focused on research for cancer, including multiple myeloma and
leukemia. Am. Compl., R.37, PageID 275–76. She has authored or coauthored over one
hundred publications. Id., PageID 276. She has also “developed compounds and produced
preclinical data” used in clinical trials. Id. And she has taught seminars and trained scientists.
Id.
Pichiorri had a productive relationship with Ohio State for about a dozen years. She
began as a “visiting Ph.D. student” in 2004. Id., PageID 275. After she obtained her doctorate
from an Italian university in 2006, she became a researcher and later a research scientist in a lab
run by Dr. Carlo Croce in Ohio State’s Department of Molecular Virology, Immunology and
Medical Genetics. Id. She served in this research role until 2011 when she became an assistant
professor in Ohio State’s College of Medicine. Id. Pichiorri left Ohio State (by all accounts on
good terms) in August 2016. Id. She is now a professor at the City of Hope Medical Center in
California. Id.
While working in Croce’s lab at Ohio State, Pichiorri coauthored several articles,
including what her complaint calls Manuscripts 1, 2, and 5. Id., PageID 276–77. (Thankfully,
we need not try to describe the manuscripts’ complex topics to resolve this appeal.) The cancer-
research community “applauded” these articles. Id., PageID 277. And other scientists have

-- 2 of 13 --

No. 24-3918 Pichiorri v. Burghes, et al. Page 3
duplicated their findings, which “have never been refuted.” Id., PageID 277, 285. In fact, “more
than seven hundred (700) researchers” have relied on the research findings over the years. Id.,
PageID 284. And Ohio State itself has used the findings to seek patents. Id., PageID 284–85.
After Pichiorri left Ohio State, however, unnamed individuals leveled “allegations of
potential research misconduct” against Pichiorri for these manuscripts. Id., PageID 277. These
individuals made the allegations between March 2017 and November 2018. Id. Ohio State
responded by putting together a committee (“the College of Medicine Investigation Committee”)
to investigate the alleged misconduct. Id., PageID 274, 277.
Because Ohio State accepts federal funds, the committee’s investigation needed to follow
standards established by the Federal Office of Research Integrity. Id., PageID 278. These
standards treat a researcher’s actions as “research misconduct” only if the actions rise to a certain
level of malfeasance. Id. (citing 42 C.F.R. § 93.103(a)–(c) (2005)). So investigators may not
treat an “honest error” as misconduct. Id., PageID 279. Although scientific articles often
contain these types of “[h]onest mistakes,” their authors typically correct the errors through
amendments. Id. And consistent with the federal standards, investigators do not typically treat
the mistakes as misconduct. Id., PageID 278–79. Universities also must keep their
investigations confidential under the federal standards. Id., PageID 278 (citing 42 C.F.R.
§ 93.108 (2005)).
Pichiorri cooperated with the committee’s investigation. Id., PageID 277–79. She
recognized some honest errors in the manuscripts. Id., PageID 279. A figure in one manuscript
had a “mistake in the legend,” and “images” in other manuscripts were allegedly false. Id. She
thus submitted corrections and verified data to prove the validity of her conclusions despite the
mistakes. Id. Pichiorri also placed the blame for the mistakes on her working conditions. Ohio
State did not adequately “train[]” scientists and forced them “to work long days and nights” that
made them prone to err. Id., PageID 280–81. Pichiorri placed further blame for the mistakes on
her colleagues at Ohio State—who generated the underlying false data. Id., PageID 281. She
exercised reasonable diligence when reviewing the data and merely failed to catch the errors. Id.

-- 3 of 13 --

No. 24-3918 Pichiorri v. Burghes, et al. Page 4
Ultimately, the committee issued a report in 2020. Id., PageID 283. The report found
that Pichiorri (and another female scientist) had committed research misconduct. Id., PageID
279–81. It recommended that Ohio State bar Pichiorri from future employment with the
university. Id., PageID 280. It also recommended that the relevant journals retract Manuscripts
1 and 2 and correct Manuscript 5. Id., PageID 282. On the other hand, the report did not find
fault with Croce or any other male scientist who helped with the manuscripts. Id., PageID 279–
83.
According to the complaint, the committee departed from the Office of Research
Integrity’s federal standards to make its findings. Id., PageID 280. The committee allegedly
created its “own” unique research-misconduct rules for Pichiorri. Id. It did not require evidence
that Pichiorri acted with an intent to defraud or even with a reckless disregard for the truth. Id.
It also refused to disclose “exculpatory evidence” to Pichiorri that would have shown that she
had not committed misconduct. Id. And it did not follow the “preponderance of the evidence”
burden of proof that the federal standards require for a research-misconduct finding. Id., PageID
285.
The committee did not just disclose the report when it officially came out in 2020. It also
re-sent the report to others (and repeated its misconduct findings) over the years. It alerted
“prestigious journals” about the report as late as July and November 2022. Id., PageID 283.
And it notified the City of Hope Medical Center, Pichiorri’s employer, in October 2022. Id.
These disclosures have injured Pichiorri. Among other things, the disclosures caused her
ongoing “public humiliation and emotional distress[.]” Id. They also “harmed her reputation
and standing in the research community.” Id., PageID 284. And they allegedly caused the
National Institutes of Health to remove her from a “coveted panel” on which she had long
served. Id., PageID 283–84. Lastly, the disclosures led the City of Hope Medical Center to
investigate all her past work funded by the National Institutes of Health. Id., PageID 283.
Although the City of Hope found no other misconduct, the investigation reduced “her role as a
senior leader” there. Id. And one of her employees quit as a result. Id.

-- 4 of 13 --

No. 24-3918 Pichiorri v. Burghes, et al. Page 5
Worried about continued disclosures of the report, Pichiorri sued the Ohio State Board of
Trustees, the investigating committee’s eight members, and an Ohio State research officer in
April 2023. Pichiorri alleged a mix of federal claims (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and state claims
(under Ohio common law). As for her federal claims, Pichiorri alleged that Ohio State violated
substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection. As for her state claims,
Pichiorri alleged that Ohio State acted negligently, defamed her, invaded her privacy, tortiously
interfered with her business relationships, breached its implied contract, intentionally inflicted
emotional distress, and committed fraud. Pichiorri sought only equitable relief (not damages).
The district court dismissed her complaint on three grounds. See Pichiorri v. Burghes,
2024 WL 4290257, at *11 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2024). The court started with sovereign
immunity. It held that this immunity barred all her claims against the Ohio State Board of
Trustees and her state (but not federal) claims against the Ohio State officials in their official
capacities. See id. at *4–5. The court next turned to the statute of limitations. It found that the
limitations period had run on Pichiorri’s substantive-due-process and equal-protection claims but
not her procedural-due-process claim. See id. at *5–7. The court lastly found that all these
constitutional claims failed on the merits anyway. See id. at *8–10. And without any remaining
federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Pichiorri’s state-law
claims against the individual officials in their personal capacities. Id. at *10. Pichiorri appealed.
We review the district court’s decision de novo. See Mohlman v. Fin. Indus. Regul. Auth., 977
F.3d 556, 558 (6th Cir. 2020).
II
On appeal, Pichiorri takes issue with each of the district court’s three reasons for
dismissing her federal claims. But we need not reach all her arguments. When a district court
denies a claim on two independent grounds, we may affirm based on only one of them. See Blick
v. Ann Arbor Pub. Sch. Dist., 105 F.4th 868, 884 (6th Cir. 2024); Jackson v. Sedgwick Claims
Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 731 F.3d 556, 562–63 (6th Cir. 2013) (en banc). We thus need not decide
whether Pichiorri sued within the time allowed by § 1983’s limitations period because Pichiorri’s
constitutional theories fail to make out “a plausible claim” on the merits. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Indeed, Pichiorri’s appellate briefing did not even challenge the district

-- 5 of 13 --

No. 24-3918 Pichiorri v. Burghes, et al. Page 6
court’s conclusion that her equal-protection claim failed to state a claim. She has thus forfeited
this “unbriefed ground.” Blick, 105 F.4th at 884. That forfeiture leaves only her two due-
process claims.
That said, we must add one caveat to this analysis. Courts must ensure themselves of
their subject-matter jurisdiction before resolving any merits issues. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for
a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–102 (1998). And courts have treated sovereign immunity as a
limit on their jurisdiction over lawsuits against the States. See Nair v. Oakland Cnty. Cmty.
Mental Health Auth., 443 F.3d 469, 473–75 (6th Cir. 2006). At the same time, though, States
may waive this immunity (something that litigants cannot do for other jurisdictional defects).
See id. at 474. So the circuit courts have split over whether they may resolve a claim on the
merits ahead of sovereign immunity. See id. at 476. For our part, we held that sovereign
immunity qualifies as a “jurisdictional bar” and not an “affirmative defense” in Russell v.
Lundergan-Grimes, 784 F.3d 1037, 1046 (6th Cir. 2015). Russell also noted that sovereign
immunity “must be decided before the merits” when the State invokes the immunity. Id. Yet we
also held in Nair that the State may waive this order of operations by showing a preference for
deciding the merits ahead of immunity. See 443 F.3d at 476–77. What do all these complexities
mean for this case? We are not sure, but we need not opine on them. We will bypass any order-
of-operation issues by simply assuming that we must resolve sovereign immunity first. We will
then turn to the district court’s rulings on the merits.
A
The Constitution grants the States sovereign immunity from a private party’s suit against
them in federal court. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996). This
immunity covers suits not just against the States themselves but also against their state agencies
and state officers sued in their official capacities. See Lewis v. Clarke, 581 U.S. 155, 162 (2017);
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165–66 (1985). Likewise, § 1983 permits suits only against
a “person”—a word that the Supreme Court has held does not include the States (or state entities
or officials sued in their official capacities). 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63–71 (1989). But this immunity comes with one noteworthy exception.
Under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), federal courts may issue injunctions that prohibit

-- 6 of 13 --

No. 24-3918 Pichiorri v. Burghes, et al. Page 7
state officials sued in their official capacities from taking actions that violate federal law. See
Morgan v. Bd. of Pro. Resp. of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 63 F.4th 510, 515 (6th Cir. 2023).
The district court correctly recognized that sovereign immunity bars many claims here
(and that those claims do not fall within § 1983’s cause of action). As an initial matter, Pichiorri
does not dispute that sovereign immunity would generally cover Ohio State’s Board of Trustees,
a suable entity that qualifies as an arm of Ohio. See Hall v. Med. Coll. of Ohio at Toledo, 742
F.2d 299, 301–03 (6th Cir. 1984); see also Thomas v. Noder-Love, 621 F. App’x 825, 831 (6th
Cir. 2015). Next, sovereign immunity covers the university officials sued in their official
capacities. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 165–66. And while the Ex Parte Young exception might
save a request for an injunction on federal claims, that exception does not allow a federal court to
enjoin state officials for violations of state law. See Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351, 368 (6th Cir.
2005) (en banc). As a result, Pichiorri also does not dispute that sovereign immunity would
generally prohibit her from seeking to enjoin the university officials from committing the alleged
torts.
Pichiorri instead offers a single argument against sovereign immunity. She contends that
Ohio State and its officials functioned as an arm of the federal government rather than Ohio
because the university received federal research funds and had to follow federal regulations
when investigating her. But Pichiorri did not make this argument in the district court. Because
she has raised the argument “too late,” she has forfeited it. Bannister v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ.,
49 F.4th 1000, 1012 (6th Cir. 2022). And she does not offer any exceptional reasons why we
should excuse this forfeiture, so we opt not to consider her argument for the first time on appeal.
See id.
All told, then, sovereign immunity bars all claims against the Board of Trustees and all
state claims against the officials in their official capacities.
B
This conclusion leaves Pichiorri’s two due-process claims against the Ohio State officials
in their official capacities. The Fourteenth Amendment makes clear that a State may not
“deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” unless the State provides the person with “due

-- 7 of 13 --

No. 24-3918 Pichiorri v. Burghes, et al. Page 8
process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Pichiorri raises both procedural and substantive
claims under this clause. But neither claim provides a plausible basis for relief.
1. Procedural Due Process
Pichiorri first asserts that the Ohio State officials violated the Due Process Clause
because they did not provide adequate process before disclosing their report to medical journals
and to her current employer (the City of Hope Medical Center). To trigger the clause’s
procedural protections, however, a challenger must show that a state actor has threatened to
deprive the challenger of something that falls within one of the clause’s three categories: “life,
liberty, or property.” Id.; see Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 59 (1999). This
case involves the Due Process Clause’s protections for “liberty.” What activities does this word
reach? Most obviously, people have a liberty interest in avoiding physical confinement by the
government. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221–22 (2005); McClendon El v.
Washington, 144 F.4th 900, 904 (6th Cir. 2025). And state law can create other types of liberty
interests—such as a prisoner’s interest in obtaining DNA evidence, see Gutierrez v. Saenz, 606
U.S. 305, 313–14 (2025), or a driver’s interest in traveling on the public roads, see Paul v. Davis,
424 U.S. 693, 711 (1976).
Yet not everything that state law protects creates a liberty interest under the Due Process
Clause. Of most note, people do not have a liberty interest in their “reputation” alone—even
though state defamation law has long sought to preserve that reputation from injurious false
claims. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 233 (1991); see Segler v. City of Detroit, 2024 WL
5135735, at *3 (6th Cir. Dec. 17, 2024). So state actors do not violate due process each time
they make allegedly false claims about a person without giving the person a hearing to prove the
truth. See Paul, 424 U.S. at 701–12. The Supreme Court has instead established a “stigma plus”
test for asserting a due-process violation based on a state actor’s defamatory statements. Siegert,
500 U.S. at 234; see Segler, 2024 WL 5135735, at *3. Under this test, plaintiffs can establish a
liberty interest subject to due-process protections only if they identify a harmful “effect” on a
more “tangible” item—such as a “right or status previously recognized by state law”—in
addition to the harm to their reputation. Paul, 424 U.S. at 701, 711. If, for example, a state actor
alleges that a public employee committed misconduct when firing the employee, the employee

-- 8 of 13 --

No. 24-3918 Pichiorri v. Burghes, et al. Page 9
may have a right to due process based on the reputational harm plus the termination. See Siegert,
500 U.S. at 233.
Pichiorri’s complaint did not plausibly assert a “liberty” interest under this stigma-plus
test. To be sure, she alleged that the Ohio State officials “harmed her reputation” by falsely
telling medical journals and the City of Hope Medical Center that she committed research
misconduct. Am. Compl., R.37, PageID 284. But she did not identify an adequate “plus.” She
had already left Ohio State’s employment when allegations of research misconduct were first
made against her and when the Ohio State officials later accused her of misconduct. She thus
cannot allege that they defamed her “in the course of” firing her from the university. Paul, 424
U.S. at 710; see Murtha v. Rossford Exempted Vill. Sch., 2021 WL 4950238, at *5 (6th Cir. Oct.
25, 2021); Martz v. Inc. Vill. of Valley Stream, 22 F.3d 26, 31–32 (2d Cir. 1994). Next, the Ohio
State officials did recommend that Ohio State prohibit Pichiorri from obtaining any future
employment with the university. Pichiorri, however, does not even try to treat this employment
ban as the “plus” for her due-process claim (perhaps because she does not plan to return to the
university). She has thus forfeited any potential theory along these lines. See Bannister, 49
F.4th at 1016–17.
Pichiorri responds that the disclosure of the misconduct allegations to the City of Hope
Medical Center “diminished . . . her role as a senior leader” there and caused “one of her own
staff” members to quit. Am. Compl., R.37, PageID 283. She adds that the National Institutes of
Health removed her from a “coveted panel” on which she had “permanent membership” and had
long served. Id., PageID 283–84. But unlike when government officials fire an employee, see
Paul, 424 U.S. at 710, prohibit an adult from buying alcohol, see Wisconsin v. Constantineau,
400 U.S. 433, 436–37 (1971), or bar an ice-skating instructor from using a public rink, see
Mertik v. Blalock, 983 F.2d 1353, 1363 (6th Cir. 1993), the Ohio State officials themselves did
not inflict these harms. Rather, Pichiorri relies on the actions of third parties (at the City of
Hope or the National Institutes of Health) who acted in response to the defamation. We have left
open whether a plaintiff can assert a due-process claim where (as here) the public actor that
allegedly defamed the plaintiff does not commit the additional injury that qualifies as the “plus”
under the stigma-plus test. See Segler, 2024 WL 5135735, at *4. And other courts appear to

-- 9 of 13 --

No. 24-3918 Pichiorri v. Burghes, et al. Page 10
disagree on this question. Compare URI Student Senate v. Town of Narragansett, 631 F.3d 1, 10
(1st Cir. 2011), with Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75, 88–90 (2d Cir. 2005).
At day’s end, though, we need not decide the question because we can reject Pichiorri’s
claim on narrower grounds. The Supreme Court has explained that a plaintiff raising a stigma-
plus claim must identify some change in “a right or status previously recognized by state law”
apart from the reputational harm. Paul, 424 U.S. at 711. And neither of Pichiorri’s two alleged
injuries show an actionable change to a cognizable interest. Start with the alleged harms at the
City of Hope Medical Center. She does not allege that the City of Hope took any personnel
action against her, such as a discharge, demotion, or the like. Rather, she alleges (vaguely) that
she suffered a “diminished” “role” at the City of Hope and that a staff member resigned. Am.
Compl., R.37, PageID 283. Other courts have held that some significant personnel actions (such
as a temporary suspension or a change in duties) do not establish an adequate “plus” for due-
process purposes. See Patterson v. City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322, 332 (2d Cir. 2004); Edwards v.
Cal. Univ. of Pa., 156 F.3d 488, 492 (3d Cir. 1998) (Alito, J.); Bordelon v. Chi. Sch. Reform Bd.
of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2000); Hughes v. Whitmer, 714 F.2d 1407, 1417 (8th
Cir. 1983); Silva v. Bieluch, 351 F.3d 1045, 1048 (11th Cir. 2003). Pichiorri, by comparison, has
alleged far less. Her complaint identifies no more than a harm to her “future employment
opportunities,” Siegert, 500 U.S. at 233–34, at the City of Hope because she now has a worse
reputation as a researcher. That harm falls short under the stigma-plus test. See id.
This conclusion leaves Pichiorri’s removal from a “coveted panel” at the National
Institutes of Health as the only remaining injury that could qualify as a “plus.” Am. Compl.,
R.37, PageID 283–84. Yet other circuit courts have recognized that government contractors who
have “merely lost one” contract (but who can apply for other contracts in the future) do not make
out a stigma-plus claim. Shirvinski v. U.S. Coast Guard, 673 F.3d 308, 316 (4th Cir. 2012)
(quoting Kartseva v. Dep’t of State, 37 F.3d 1524, 1529 (D.C. Cir. 1994)); see Khan v. Bland,
630 F.3d 519, 533–35 (7th Cir. 2010); Latessa v. N.J. Racing Comm’n, 113 F.3d 1313, 1318 (3d
Cir. 1997). At most, Pichiorri’s complaint alleges this type of loss. Indeed, the complaint
provided no details about the panel. We have no idea how the National Institutes of Health
picked people for the panel. We have no idea what the panel did. We have no idea if the

-- 10 of 13 --

No. 24-3918 Pichiorri v. Burghes, et al. Page 11
position was paid or voluntary. And we have no idea whether Pichiorri could seek to join similar
panels at the National Institutes of Health in the future. Given the lack of details, the complaint
did not assert a “plausible claim” that this removal rose to the required level of harm. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679. Pichiorri has thus failed to identify the required “plus” to make out a stigma-plus
claim under the Due Process Clause.
2. Substantive Due Process
Pichiorri also asserts that the Ohio State officials violated the substantive component of
the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court has held that this clause can prohibit the
government from depriving an individual of “liberty” no matter the procedure that the
government provides. See Dep’t of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899, 910 (2024). This type of
substantive-due-process claim can arise from executive action when officials engage in arbitrary
conduct that “shock[s] the contemporary conscience.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S.
833, 847 n.8 (1998). Given the “open-ended” nature of this shocks-the-conscience test, Jane
Doe v. Jackson Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 954 F.3d 925, 933 (6th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted),
the Supreme Court has cautioned that courts must “exercise the utmost care” before finding it
met, Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). The Due Process Clause
prohibits “only the most egregious official conduct,” such as pumping a criminal suspect’s
stomach against his will to recover evidence of a crime. Lewis, 523 U.S. at 846–47 (discussing
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)). It does not, by contrast, “supplant traditional tort
law” duties of care. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332 (1986); see Collins, 503 U.S. at 128.
Pichiorri claims that the Ohio State officials engaged in conscience-shocking behavior
when they disclosed the research-misconduct allegations to medical journals and the City of
Hope Medical Center over two years after the investigation had been completed. She argues that
these disclosures shock the conscience because they ran afoul of a then-applicable confidentiality
rule issued by the Office of Research Integrity. This rule required an institution to “maintain[]”
the confidentiality of “records or evidence” that identify the subjects of an investigation
“[e]xcept as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law[.]” 42 C.F.R. § 93.108(b) (2005).
And Pichiorri says that the Ohio State officials had no reason for their disclosures except
“malice” towards her. Appellant’s Br. 34.

-- 11 of 13 --

No. 24-3918 Pichiorri v. Burghes, et al. Page 12
This claim falls short for several reasons. To start, as we have explained, Pichiorri’s
complaint has not identified an adequate “liberty” interest worthy of procedural protections
under the Due Process Clause. This conclusion might suffice to foreclose her substantive claim
too. After all, “it would be an odd result” for the same word in the Fourteenth Amendment
(“liberty”) to change meanings depending on whether a plaintiff asserts a substantive-due-
process claim or a procedural-due-process claim. Boyanowski v. Cap. Area Intermediate Unit,
215 F.3d 396, 402 (3d Cir. 2000). How could the allegedly defamatory statements fall within the
word “liberty” in the one context but not the other? At the least, Pichiorri’s failure to identify a
liberty interest even worthy of procedural protection goes a long way toward showing that the
challenged conduct “does not shock the conscience” under substantive due process. Lewis, 523
U.S. at 855.
Next, Pichiorri’s substantive-due-process theory would constitutionalize the common law
of defamation. She alleges classic defamatory conduct: that the Ohio State officials “adversely”
“affect[ed]” her in her “profession” and “reputation” by publishing false statements about her.
Cf. Jackson v. Columbus, 883 N.E.2d 1060, 1064 (Ohio 2008) (citation omitted). And Pichiorri
even pursued a state-law defamation claim that the district court dismissed without prejudice.
But the Supreme Court’s cases bar us from reading the Due Process Clause as a “font of tort
law” that supersedes Ohio defamation rules. See Paul, 424 U.S. at 701. So she cannot pursue a
“defamation” claim under the guise of substantive due process. See Jenkins v. Rock Hill Loc.
Sch. Dist., 513 F.3d 580, 590 (6th Cir. 2008). Put another way, disseminating this sort of false
information alone is not so “egregious” as to shock the conscience. See Lewis, 523 U.S. at 846.
And that fact remains true even if the Ohio State officials acted with “malice,” as Pichiorri
claims. The Supreme Court has made clear that plaintiffs lack “constitutional protection for the
interest in reputation” alone even when a defendant acts with a malicious mindset. Siegert, 500
U.S. at 234.
Lastly, the federal confidentiality rule cannot save Pichiorri’s claim. The Constitution
does not codify this privacy regulation. To the contrary, we have held that substantive due
process protects a person’s privacy only when the government’s disclosure of “personal
information could lead to bodily harm” or when the disclosed information contains “sexual,

-- 12 of 13 --

No. 24-3918 Pichiorri v. Burghes, et al. Page 13
personal, and humiliating” details. Lambert v. Hartman, 517 F.3d 433, 440 (6th Cir. 2008)
(citing Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998), and Bloch v. Ribar, 156
F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 1998)). Yet Pichiorri makes no claim that the disclosure threatened her
physically; rather, she claims it threatened her career. Cf. Lambert, 517 F.3d at 444. And the
research-misconduct allegations did not contain intimate details about her personal life like the
details that we have found protected in past cases (such as “confidential and intimate details of a
rape”). See Bloch, 156 F.3d at 676, 685–86. In sum, neither Pichiorri’s claim that the Ohio State
officials defamed her nor her claim that they violated a confidentiality regulation plausibly
alleged conscience-shocking behavior.
We affirm.

-- 13 of 13 --