628, 97 S.Ct. 882, 884, 51 L.Ed.2d 92, 97 (1977)). “[A] public employee who is defamed in the course of being terminated or constructively discharged satisfies the ‘stigma-plus’ test even if, as a matter of state law, he lacks a property interest in the job he lost.” Id. at 238. The Third Circuit, however, has repeatedly held that even if the liberty interest meets the “stigma-plus test,” it is not accorded substantive due process protections. “To the extent [the plaintifffs substantive due process claim [under § 1983] was based not only on loss of his job, but also on reputational injury that decreased his ability to earn a living, it also fails.” Hill, supra, 455 F.3d at 235 n. 12 (emphasis added). See also Boyanowski v. Capital Area Intermediate Unit, 215 F.3d 396, 399-404 (3d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1011, 121 S.Ct. 566,
recognizing a plaintiffs  1988 claim predicated on an alleged violation of his substantive due process rights holding that discretion of zoning board was not sufficiently circumscribed to support substantive due process claim holding that when a prisoners deliberate indifference claim is covered by the eighth amendment the substantive due process claims are duplicative and thus the substantive due process claims should be dismissed recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim holding that defamatory comments negatively affecting the plaintiffs business did not support a substantive due process claim