Opinion ID: 1608200
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Due Process Hearings For Reductions In Rank Constitutional Claims

Text: ¶ 49. Having concluded that chiefs and PFCs possess authority to promote officers on a probationary basis, we turn to the question whether these officers are entitled to a due process hearing if they are returned to their previous rank, during their probationary period, for nondisciplinary reasons. A law enforcement officer seeking such a hearing must rely on some constitutional protection or statutory right if the hearing is not required by a collective bargaining agreement. ¶ 50. The constitutional basis for a due process hearing for public employees was described in Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). The Court explained that the requirements of procedural due process apply to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property. Id. at 569. When these protected interests are implicated, the right to some kind of prior hearing is paramount. Id. at 569-70. To determine whether due process arguments apply, we look to the nature of the interest at stake. Id. at 571-72. [5] ¶ 51. An employee's liberty interest may involve the employee's standing in the community. Id. at 573. Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 (1971). But see Weber v. City of Cedarburg, 129 Wis. 2d 57, 73, 384 N.W.2d 333 (1986) (Reputation by itself is neither liberty nor property within the meaning of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.). In such a case, a due process hearing will accord the employee an opportunity to refute the charge. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573. ¶ 52. In Roth, no charges were leveled against David Roth when his contract as a professor was not renewed. Id. No reason for the employee's non-retention was given. Id. at 568. The Court concluded that Roth had no right to a hearing on the decision not to rehire him, because the government had not made any charge that might damage his standing and association in the community. Id. at 573. ¶ 53. In this regard, Kraus's position is similar to Roth's. Chief Sharrock did not level any charges of misconduct, dishonesty, or immorality against Kraus. The Roth court stated that, It stretches the concept too far to suggest that a person is deprived of `liberty' when he simply is not rehired in one job but remains as free as before to seek another. Id. at 575. Likewise, a law enforcement officer's liberty interest is not implicated if the officer is returned to his former rank, during a probationary period, when the chief merely determines that the officer has not satisfied the chief's requirements for a permanent promotion. Kraus's reduction in rank for nondisciplinary reasons did not impair any liberty interest he had, and he was not entitled to a due process hearing on that basis. ¶ 54. The Roth Court also examined Roth's claim that he had been deprived of a property interest. It acknowledged that the Fourteenth Amendment protects a public employee against the deprivation of an acquired property interest without due process safeguards, but it stated: To have a property interest in a benefit, a person must clearly have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. Id. at 577. ¶ 55. The Court declared that the existence of a property right is determined by state law. Id. at 577; see also Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 344 (1976); Milwaukee Dist. Council 48 v. Milwaukee County, 2001 WI 65, ¶ 50, 244 Wis. 2d 333, 627 N.W.2d 866. Roth's property interest in his employment was created and defined by the terms of his appointment. Roth, 408 U.S. at 578. His appointment was for one year. Id. It did not provide for contract renewal absent sufficient cause. In these circumstances, the Court said, Roth did not have a property interest sufficient to require the University authorities to give him a hearing when they declined to renew his contract of employment. Id. (emphasis added). ¶ 56. Kraus's situation is again similar to Roth's. Kraus had no right to a promotion, and when he was promoted to sergeant, his promotion was conditioned upon his successful completion of probation. [16] Kraus had a unilateral expectation that his promotion would be permanent, but he did not have an entitlement to that promotion. He fundamentally misconstrues the scope of the property interest that he obtained by virtue of becoming a permanent police officer. [17] Kraus possesses a property interest only in his continued employment as a patrol officer, not in the rank of sergeant. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 578 (holding that the terms of a public employee's appointment secured no interest in reemployment the following year, that such employee had only an abstract interest in being rehired); Kaiser, 104 Wis. 2d at 505 (holding that a probationary police officer under § 165.85(4)(b) had no more than a unilateral expectation of fulfilling the year and being hired as a permanent officer). [6] ¶ 57. It is only after an officer completes the probationary period for a position, including a promotion, that a property interest arises in that position. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538-41 (1985). Thus, Kraus must look for a statutory right to a hearing because he cannot rely on a constitutional protection on the facts of this case.