I am really having a hard time following this article, as it seems disjointed. Here is a direct quote:

In addition to a pretermination (Loudermill) hearing, an employee must be afforded a full evidentiary hearing, after the termination takes effect.[2] However, the scope of the pretermination hearing depends upon the scope of the post-termination hearing available to the employee. If a full post-termination hearing is available, the Loudermill pretermination hearing is minimal.

In such situations the employee would have an opportunity to respond in the pretermination hearing as long as she had available a post-termination hearing. Thus, the pre-termination hearing functions as "an initial check against mistaken decision  essentially a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action."[3] If a pretermination hearing is "oral or written notice of the charges against [the employee], an explanation of the employer's evidence [against the employee], and an opportunity [for the employee] to present their side of the story."[4]

The final sentence makes no sense, as it is not a complete sentence. The first paragraph also makes little sense, because it says that an employee MUST be afforded a full, post-termination hearing, but then goes on to say that if a full post-termination hearing is available, the pre-termination hearing is minimal. 

I would recommend that somebody rewrite this entire article, who has a complete understanding of the Loudermill holding.