Opinion ID: 2517978
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Faghri's due process claim

Text: The district court determined that summary judgment was inappropriate on Faghri's due process claim because issues of material fact existed regarding whether Faghri had a property right in his deanship. We disagree. Even assuming he had a property right and was accordingly entitled to some process, no clearly established law required the university to give Faghri more process than he received. We conclude that the district court erred in denying Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Faghri's due process claim as well. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, No State shall ... deprive any person of ... property, without due process of law. A public employee who may be dismissed only for just cause has a property right in his employment. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538-39, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985); Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir.2002). Where a public employee has a property interest in employment in a particular position, that employee cannot be terminated or demoted without due process. Ciambriello, 292 F.3d at 317-18. The due process clause requires a government employer to provide notice and opportunity for a hearing before terminating an employee with a protected property interest in his employment. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487 (internal quotation marks omitted). In such a hearing, the employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story. Id. at 545-46, 105 S.Ct. 1487. However, the requisite hearing is a minimal one, Locurto v. Safir, 264 F.3d 154, 173 (2d Cir.2001), designed to serve as an initial check against mistaken decisions, Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 545, 105 S.Ct. 1487. It need not be conducted before a neutral decisionmaker, Locurto, 264 F.3d at 174, and it is not intended to resolve the propriety of the discharge, but to ensur[e] there are reasonable grounds to find the charges against an employee are true and would support his termination, id. at 173-74. Where a government employer demotes an employee, rather than terminating him, [t]he determination of whether [he] is entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing is fact-specific. Ciambriello, 292 F.3d at 319. This determination  and the determination of the extent of the process required in such a hearing if the employee is entitled to one  involves balancing the respective interests of the employee and the employer. The Supreme Court instructed in Mathews v. Eldridge, that a court consider: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); see also Monserrate v. New York State Senate, 599 F.3d 148, 159 (2d Cir.2010) (The timing and nature of the required hearing will depend on appropriate accommodation of the competing interests involved. (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ciambriello, 292 F.3d at 320. Faghri does not claim that his contract rights entitled him to keep his position or be paid damages for his removal. He has not brought a claim of breach of contract. With respect to this cause of action, he claims only that his contract (because it omitted the serve at the pleasure of clause) gave him a limited property interest, which entitled him to some kind of predeprivation process. Assuming he is correct that he was entitled to some predeprivation process, the deprivation was minimal. His interest in retaining his deanship (over and above his professorship, which he retained) was only incremental and must be balanced against the university's interest in having a senior executive and policymaking position filled by one who was not bent on undermining the university's policies and was not a lightning rod of controversy in the faculty. Given this balance of interests, we know no clearly established law suggesting that Faghri had a right to more predeprivation process than he received. Even upon termination of an employee having a property interest in his position, the employee is entitled only to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 546, 105 S.Ct. 1487. Faghri (who was not terminated, but merely demoted) received oral notice of the university's intent to remove him from the deanship, a brief explanation of the university's evidence, and an opportunity to be heard. Nicholls summoned him to a face-to-face meeting and told him the university's reason. Faghri had the opportunity in that meeting and immediately afterward to respond. As a sophisticated actor holding a prominent position in the university hierarchy, Faghri was well-equipped and well-positioned to make use of that opportunity. Any significant delay to afford Faghri more time to construct a response, during which time he would remain in his position, would have been detrimental to the university's interest in its efficient governance. Faghri furthermore did not request additional time to mount a defense or present explanations. No clearly established constitutional law required the university to provide additional predeprivation process to such a management and policymaking employee in these circumstances. Defendants Austin and Nicholls were therefore entitled to have the case dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity.