mean that if a government official defames a person, without more, the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are brought into play." Davis, 424 U.S. at 708. Instead, the Court stated, the language " 'because of what the government is doing to him' [in Constantineau] referred to the fact that the governmental action taken in that case deprived the individual of a right previously held under state law — the right to purchase or obtain liquor in common with the rest of the citizenry." Id. When no such state law and corresponding right exists, held the Court, reputational interests are "neither 'liberty' nor 'property' guaranteed against state deprivation without due process of law." Id. at 712; see also Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 234 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Weber v. City of Cedarburg, 129 Wis. 2d 57,
holding a party failed to preserve error on its constitutional due process argument concerning notice when they did not cite any state or federal constitutional provision to the trial court or otherwise explain how lack of notice violated their constitutional rights holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice holding that the lack of a confidentiality agreement does not necessarily defeat an argument that information is a trade secret because where an employee acquires during the course of his employment a special technique or process developed by his employer he is under a duty not to use it to the detriment of his employer holding that plaintiffs due process rights had not been violated when his government employer wrote an allegedly defamatory letter to a prospective employer because under davis there is a lack of any constitutional protection for the interest in reputation holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation