Opinion ID: 203178
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Impartial Hearing Officer

Text: We have held that there is no requirement that the hearing officer be impartial; indeed, the terminating employer may preside. . . . But that impartiality is not demanded does not itself determine whether bias can be so severe as to interfere with due process at the hearing itself. Chmielinski v. Massachusetts, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 171099, at  (1st Cir. Jan. 22, 2008). To demonstrate such a due process violation, however, the plaintiff would have to show that the alleged bias deprived him of the opportunity to put his facts before the decisionmaker, or that -3- there was an[] error of primary facts in the grounds used for termination that could be explained only by bias. Id. As the district court found, and the record supports, Jackson had the opportunity to present testimony and cross-examine witnesses at his pre-termination hearing. And the record does not reveal erroneous factual findings at the pre-termination stage that could be explained only by bias. Although the arbitrator concluded that there was not just cause to dismiss Jackson, she did not find that the charges were without any factual basis. Instead, the arbitrator's conclusion of no just cause was largely based on her finding that MBCC had not put Jackson on notice in the years leading up to his dismissal that the underlying conduct charged was inappropriate and, if continued, could result in dismissal. Moreover, as in Chmielinski, the post-termination procedures (arbitration) provided an adequate means for Jackson to complain about the decisionmaker's alleged bias. See id. at  n.6.