BRENNAN, J., dissenting 424 U.S. Moreover, the analysis has a hollow ring in light of the Court's acceptance of the truth of the allegation that the "active shoplifter" label would "seriously impair [respondent's] future employment opportunities." Ante, at 697. This is clear recognition that an official "badge of infamy" affects tangible interests of the defamed individual and not merely an abstract interest in how people view him; for the "badge of infamy" has serious consequences in its impact on no less than the opportunities open to him to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is inexplicable how the Court can say that a person's status is "altered" when the State suspends him from school, revokes his driver's license, fires him from a job, or denies him the right to purchase a drink of alcohol, but is in no way "altered" when it officially pins upon him the brand of a criminal, particularly since the Court recognizes how deleterious will be the consequences that inevitably flow from its official act. See, e. g., ante, at 708-709, 711-712. Our precedents clearly mandate that a person's interest in his good name and reputation is cognizable as a "liberty" interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause, and the Court has simply failed to distinguish those precedents in any rational manner in holding that no invasion of a "liberty" interest was effected in the official stigmatizing of respondent as a criminal without any "process" whatsoever. I have always thought that one of this Court's most important roles is to provide a formidable bulwark against governmental violation of the constitutional safe tion, honor and integrity of the person involved. The fact of an arrest without more may impair or cloud a person's reputation. Michelson v. United States, 335 U. S. 469, 482... (1948). Such acts on the part of law enforcement officials may result in direct economic loss and restricted opportunities for schooling, employment and professional licenses. Menard v. Mitchell, 139 U. S. App. D. C. 113, 430 F. 2d 486, 490 (1970)." 505 F. 2d 1180, 1183 (1974). 693 BRENNAN, J., dissenting guards securing in our free society the legitimate expectations of every person to innate human dignity and sense of worth. It is a regrettable abdication of that role and a saddening denigration of our majestic Bill of Rights when the Court tolerates arbitrary and capricious official conduct branding an individual as a criminal without compliance with constitutional procedures designed to ensure the fair and impartial ascertainment of criminal culpability. Today's decision must surely be a shortlived aberration.18 18 In light of my conviction that the State may not condemn an individual as a criminal without following the mandates of the trial process, I need not address the question whether there is an independent right of privacy which would yield the same result. Indeed, privacy notions appear to be inextricably interwoven with the considerations which require that a State not single an individual out for punishment outside the judicial process. Essentially, the core concept would be that a State cannot broadcast even such factual events as the occurrence of an arrest that does not culminate in a conviction when there are no legitimate law enforcement justifications for doing so, since the State is chargeable with the knowledge that many employers will treat an arrest the same as a conviction and deny the individual employment or other opportunities on the basis of a fact that has no probative value with respect to actual criminal culpability. See, e. g., Michelson v. United States, 335 U. S. 469, 482 (1948); Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S., at 241. A host of state and federal courts, relying on both privacy notions and the presumption of innocence, have begun to develop a line of cases holding that there are substantive limits on the power of the government to disseminate unresolved arrest records outside the law enforcement system, see, e. g., Utz v. Cullinane, 172 U. S. App. D. C. 67, 520 F. 2d 467 (1975); Tarlton v. Saxbe, 165 U. S. App. D. C. 293, 507 F. 2d 1116 (1974); United States v. Dooley, 364 F. Supp. 75 (ED Pa. 1973); Menard v. Mitchell, 328 F. Supp. 718, 725-726 (DC 1971), rev'd on other grounds, 162 U. S. App. D. C. 284, 498 F. 2d 1017 (1974); United States v. Kalish, 271 F. Supp. 968 (PR 1967); Davidson v. Dill, 180 Colo. 123, 503 P. 2d 157 (1972); Eddy v. Moore, 5 Wash. App. 334, 487 P. 2d 211 (1971). I fear that after BRENNAN, J., dissenting 424 U.S. today's decision, these nascent doctrines will never have the opportunity for full growth and analysis. Since the Court of Appeals did not address respondent's privacy claims, and since there has not been substantial briefing or oral argument on that point, the Court's pronouncements are certainly unnecessary. Of course, States that are more sensitive than is this Court to the privacy and other interests of individuals erroneously caught up in the criminal justice system are certainly free to adopt or adhere to higher standards under state law. See, e. g., Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U. S. 96, 111, 120-121 (1975) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). MR. JUSTICE WHITE does not concur in this footnote. Syllabus LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 74-1245. Argued January 19, 1976-Decided March 23, 1976 Respondents filed a complaint alleging that petitioner's employee insurance benefits and maternity leave regulations discriminated against its women employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and seeking injunctive relief, damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. After ruling in respondents' favor on their motion for a partial summary judgment on the issue of petitioner's liability under the Act, the District Court, upon denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, issued an amended order stating that injunctive relief would be withheld because petitioner had filed an appeal and had asked for a stay of any injunction, and directing that, pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54 (b), final judgment be entered for respondents, there being no just reason for delay. The Court of Appeals, holding that it had jurisdiction of petitioner's appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1291, affirmed on the merits. Held: 1. The District Court's order was not appealable as a final decision under § 1291. Pp. 742-744. (a) Even assuming that the order was a declaratory judgment on the issue of liability, it nevertheless left unresolved and did not finally dispose of any of the respondents' prayers for relief. P. 742. (b) The order did not become appealable as a final decision pursuant to § 1291 merely because it made the recital required by Rule 54 (b), since that Rule applies only to multiple-claim actions in which one or more but less than all of the claims have been finally decided and are found otherwise ready for appeal, and does not apply to a single-claim action such as this one where the complaint advanced a single legal theory that was applied to only one set of facts. Pp. 742-744. (c) The order, apart from its reference to Rule 54 (b), constitutes a grant of partial summary judgment limited to the issue of petitioner's liability, is by its terms interlocutory, and, where damages or other relief remain to be resolved, cannot be considered "final" within the meaning of § 1291. P. 744. 2. Nor was the order appealable pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292's provisions for interlocutory appeals. Pp. 744-745. (a) Even if the order insofar as it failed to include the requested injunctive relief could be considered an interlocutory order refusing an injunction within the meaning of § 1292 (a) (1), and thus would have allowed respondents then to obtain review in the Court of Appeals, there was no denial of any injunction sought by petitioner and it could not avail itself of that grant of jurisdiction. Pp. 744-745. (b) Even if the order could be considered as an order that the District Court certified for immediate appeal pursuant to § 1292 (b) as involving a controlling question of law as to which there was substantial ground for difference of opinion, it does not appear that petitioner applied to the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal within 10 days as required by § 1292 (b); moreover, there can be no assurance had the other requirements of § 1292 (b) been met that the Court of Appeals would have exercised its discretion to entertain the interlocutory appeal. P. 745. 511 F. 2d 199, vacated and remanded. REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all Members joined except BLACKMUN, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Kalvin M. Grove argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Lawrence M. Cohen, Jeffrey S. Goldman, and Robert A. Penney. Howard A. Specter argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.* *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Gordon Dean Booth, Jr., for Alaska Airlines, Inc., et al.; by Edward Silver, Larry M. Lavinsky, Sara S. Portnoy, and Kenneth L. Kimble for the American Life Insurance Assn. et al.; by William Martin and Paul C. Blume for the American Mutual Insurance Alliance et al.; by Thompson Powers for the American Telephone & Telegraph Co.; by Simon H. Rifkind, Frazer F. Hilder, and Edmond J. Dilworth, Jr., for General Motors Corp.; by Richard D. Godown for the National Association of Manufacturers; by Lloyd Sutter for Owens-Illinois, |