Ruling there is no constitutional right to be free from "innuendo," a federal judge has dismissed a civil rights suit brought by a police chief who claimed his reputation was damaged when borough officials posted an Internet notice that said he had been suspended.

"A truthful statement that damages one's reputation simply does not trigger any constitutional concerns," U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner wrote in his 28-page opinion in McCarthy v. Darman.

Plaintiff Albert McCarthy claimed in the suit that he was defamed because notice of his suspension with pay pending the outcome of an investigation was published on the Internet as part of the minutes from a borough council meeting.

But Joyner concluded that because the published information about the suspension was true, Albert McCarthy could never satisfy the requirements of the so-called "stigma-plus" test to maintain his procedural due process claim.