Opinion ID: 1596589
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: pretermination due process

Text: Public employees may have a property right in continued employment. [Citations omitted.] When such property rights exist, they are created not by the Constitution, but by an independent source such as state law. [Citations omitted.] If an employee has a property right in continued employment, he may not be discharged from his job without due process. Riggins v. Bd. of Regents of University of Nebraska, 790 F.2d 707, 710 (8th Cir.1986), citing Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985), and Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). In this case, the City concedes in its brief that Unland had a property interest in his job by virtue of article 8 of the labor agreement between the City and the Lincoln Police Union. Article 8 provides that police officers may be discharged only for good cause. The issue, then, is whether Unland received the process that was due him in connection with his 15-day suspension followed by dismissal at the end of that period. It is fundamental to established principles of due process that as a prerequisite to an intentional deprivation of a protected property interest, the government must provide some notice and an opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). In Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, supra , the U.S. Supreme Court held that a public employee with a property interest in continued employment who is given posttermination administrative procedures must nevertheless, before termination, be given (1) oral or written notice of the charges against him, (2) an explanation of the employer's evidence, and (3) an opportunity to present his side of the story. A pretermination procedure functions only as an initial check against mistaken decisionsessentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 545-46, 105 S.Ct. at 1495. The pretermination process need not resolve the propriety of the discharge. Loudermill, supra . All process that is due is provided by a pretermination opportunity to respond, coupled with posttermination procedures. Id. See, also, Linton v. Frederick County Bd. of County Com'rs, 964 F.2d 1436 (4th Cir.1992); Duchesne v. Williams, 849 F.2d 1004 (6th Cir.1988); Morton v. Beyer, 822 F.2d 364 (3d Cir.1987); Riggins, supra . We now examine whether the City afforded Unland the three elements of pretermination due process set forth in Loudermill. As to the first element, Unland claims that he did not have any notice of the specific charges against him or that termination of his employment was a possibility. The record clearly reflects that prior to the July 27 hearing, Unland did receive notice of specific charges against him and that termination of his employment was a possibility. Under the second element of Loudermill, an employee, prior to termination of his employment, is entitled to an explanation of the employer's evidence against the employee. Unland claims that he did not know that previous disciplinary actions against him would be considered. However, Becker's testimony that he told Unland that he would be recommending termination to Curtis based on Unland's previous disciplinary history was sufficient for the trial court to find that Unland had notice that his disciplinary history would be used as evidence against him at his pretermination hearing. Moreover, the record also reveals that the discussions between Becker and Thurber, Unland's attorney, were sufficient to give Unland both notice of the charges against him and an explanation of the City's evidence against him. The general rule is that notice to, or knowledge of facts by, an attorney is notice to, or knowledge of, his client. State v. McKenna, 228 Neb. 29, 421 N.W.2d 19 (1988); City of Hastings v. Jerry Spady Pontiac-Cadillac, Inc., 212 Neb. 137, 322 N.W.2d 369 (1982). Unland argues that his former attorney should not have testified at the trial to his conversations with Unland, due to the attorney-client privilege. Unland objected to his former attorney's testimony at trial. However, this court has held in League v. Vanice, 221 Neb. 34, 374 N.W.2d 849 (1985), that a litigant is not permitted to thrust his lack of knowledge into litigation as a foundation or condition necessary to sustain a claim against another while simultaneously retaining the attorney-client privilege to frustrate proof of knowledge negating the very foundation or condition necessary to prevail on the claim asserted. Unland's alleged lack of knowledge is central to this case. Unland may not assert the attorney-client privilege as to conversations between him and Thurber concerning whether Unland had notice of the charges or an explanation of the City's evidence against him. We now consider whether Unland had an opportunity to tell his side of the story. Unland himself testified that at the hearing, he gave a brief speech on why I felt I was had been a good police officer and could continue to be a good police officer.... At the hearing, through his attorney, Unland also presented an alternative discipline proposal which outlined discipline that did not include termination. The record reflects that Unland had a meaningful opportunity to respond to the charges and the evidence against him. On the basis of the evidence presented at trial, it cannot be said that the trial court was clearly wrong in finding that Unland was accorded procedural due process of law in relation to his termination.