A plaintiff's due process claim in a case such as this depends on him having a property right in continued employment. In Loudermill , the Court determined that an Ohio statute providing that classified civil service employees could not be dismissed except for misfeasance, qualified as a property interest in continued employment. Generally, notice and the opportunity for a hearing must precede the deprivation of the property interest. However, the pre-termination hearing, though necessary, need not be elaborate, and something less than a full evidentiary hearing is sufficient. Analysis of what process is due in a particular proceeding depends on the nature of the proceeding and the interest affected by it.
Defendants argue that plaintiff's post-suspension hearing satisfied the act's requirement.
However, another panel of this Court, in Jackson , supra at 177 n 1, rejected the conclusion in Adams that the employer need not hold a hearing before taking action. This panel, however, is bound to follow Jackson . See also Jackson , supra at 177. The quoted language does not support defendants' argument. First, this Court has already concluded in Jackson , supra at 177, that an employee is entitled to a hearing before the adverse employment action.