Due Process based on a Right to Pursue a Chosen Career Plaintiff also asserts that she was denied a substantive Due Process right by the Individual Defendants because their actions have prevented her from asserting her liberty interest in pursuing her chosen profession as a teacher. “While a person’s right to pursue the profession of his choice is recognized as a constitutionally protected liberty interest, courts in the Second Circuit have consistently held one must have no ability to practice one’s profession at all in order to state a claim for deprivation of a liberty interest.” Toussie v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 806 F.Supp.2d 558, 579-80 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (Seybert, J.) (citing Jaeger v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 96CV9336, 199 .2d 331, 336 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (Kaplan, J.) (<HOLDING>). As Plaintiff was, in fact, capable of
holding that the plaintiffs disciplinary segregated confinement for thirty days did not present the type of atypical significant deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a liberty interest holding that civil commitment for any purpose constitutes significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection holding that members of the city council in their official capacity are not immune from a section 1983 suit against the municipality for deprivation of liberty interest in reputation without due process holding citys termination of plaintiffs contracts and publishing negative news report did not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest even though a significant part of plaintiffs business had involved projects for the city holding that the plaintiff owner of a restaurantbar stated a cause of action for deprivation of a liberty interest by alleging that the defendant city engaged in a campaign of harassment that infringed on the plaintiffs constitutional right to pursue an occupation