to infringe on this liberty interest, four factors must be met: First, to be actionable, the statements must impugn the good name, reputation, honor, or integrity of the employee. Second, the statements must be false. Third, the statements must occur in the course of terminating the employee or must foreclose other employment opportunities. And fourth, the statements must be published. These elements are not disjunctive, all must be satisfied to demonstrate deprivation of a liberty interest. Workman, 32 F.3d at 481 (citations omitted). In this case, we need not consider all four Workman factors. Sanchez fails to state a claim because he cannot demonstrate that the statements made to the NCAA were published. See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 348, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976) (<HOLDING>) (quotation omitted). Although documents
holding that an obligation imposed by statute cannot form the basis for a statutory employer relationship holding that unenforceable promises cannot form the basis for a claim of promissory estoppel holding that franchisor not only has valid interest in protecting good will it has developed but it also has an interest in being able to place a new franchisee at or near the same location where its goodwill has been created holding that assumption of defense cannot be basis for claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing where contract had been rescinded holding a nonpublic communication cannot properly form the basis for a claim that petitioners interest in his good name reputation honor or integrity has been impaired