Opinion ID: 2972365
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-Termination Procedures

Text: As an initial matter, we note that if the VPA does apply, the record does not provide sufficient evidence to allow us to conclude that Moss’s pre-termination federal due process rights were violated. The Supreme Court has explained that when state law provides for a “full posttermination hearing,” the hearing required pre-termination is relatively limited. Loudermill, 470 7 U.S. at 546. Prior to termination, “[t]he tenured public 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. Moss received oral notice of the charges against him when confronted by Balbo on December 10, 2002. Sufficient explanation of MSCPA’s evidence was presented to Moss at the December 17, 2002 meeting, when Moss was provided with the test results showing the presence of marijuana metabolites in his urine. As Moss conceded in his deposition, he had an opportunity to say anything he wanted at this meeting, and accordingly we must conclude that he had an opportunity to present his side of the story. We emphasize that these limited pre-termination procedures satisfy federal due process requirements only because of the extensive post-termination hearing and remedial provisions provided by Michigan law — including full compensation for lost work time if reinstatement is ordered. See id.; MICH. COMP. LAWS § 35.402.4