Opinion ID: 1989368
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: due process violation; loudermill

Text: The Union asserts that pursuant to Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985), the County failed to provide constitutional due process to the discharged employees. It argues the County did not provide a pretermination hearing and did not provide an opportunity for the discharged employees to discuss or rebut their job evaluations prior to their discharge. The Union concludes that the CIR erred in not finding a constitutional violation, although it admits that the issue was not presented before the CIR. In Loudermill, the U.S. Supreme Court held that when a public employer deprives an employee of a property interest in continued employment (as first defined in Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)), constitutional due process requires that the deprivation be preceded with notice to the employee, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity for the employee to present his or her side of the story. The County argues that the Loudermill claim is not properly before this court because the Union did not assert that claim in its petition and did not address it before the CIR. However, the Union replies that constitutional due process issues are not waived if timely raised in the first judicial tribunal to review the administrative action, citing Ashby v. Civil Serv. Comm., 241 Neb. 988, 492 N.W.2d 849 (1992), and that thus this court may consider the due process claim. In Ashby, we stated that procedural due process defenses should not be waived if timely raised in the first judicial tribunal to review the administrative action. Id. at 993, 492 N.W.2d at 853. Furthermore, we recognize that we have considered constitutional issues that were not raised until the appeal reached a court, with this court's being the first forum. See id. We have stated that it is the practice of this court to consider constitutional questions in reviewing the orders of administrative agencies when those questions are raised in this court on direct review. In re Appropriations D-887 and A-768, 240 Neb. 337, 482 N.W.2d 11 (1992); Metropolitan Utilities Dist. v. Merritt Beach Co., 179 Neb. 783, 140 N.W.2d 626 (1966). In effect, the constitutional issue in Ashby is similar to one that the Union presents here. In Ashby, the discharged employee asserted that his employer violated his federal constitutional due process rights when his employment was terminated. Thus, we reach the Loudermill claim. To be clear, the CIR's order is properly silent on the Loudermill issue. The CIR has no authority to vindicate constitutional rights. Wood v. Tesch, 222 Neb. 654, 659, 386 N.W.2d 436, 441 (1986), overruled on other grounds, Landon v. Pettijohn, 231 Neb. 837, 438 N.W.2d 757 (1989). See Calabro v. City of Omaha, 247 Neb. 955, 531 N.W.2d 541 (1995) (stating that Nebraska Constitution, through separation of powers provisions, prohibited CIR from declaring whether party acted in an unconstitutional manner). Therefore, the CIR did not err in failing to determine the Loudermill issue. The Union's claim that the County denied the discharged employees due process depends on [the discharged employees'] having had a property right in continued employment. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). Apparently, the Union presumes in making the due process argument that the discharged employees had a property interest that the federal Constitution protects. It is well-settled that a unilateral expectation of continued employment does not create an entitlement that the due process clause protects. Simpkins v. Sandwich Community Hosp., 854 F.2d 215, 218 (7th Cir.1988). See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). The existence of a legitimate claim of entitlement to a property interest in continued employment is to be determined in accordance with state law. Nicholson v. Gant, 816 F.2d 591, 597 (11th Cir.1987). See Loudermill, supra . `It is well established in Nebraska that when employment is not for a definite term, and there are no contractual or statutory restrictions upon the right of discharge, an employer may lawfully discharge an employee whenever and for whatever cause it chooses without incurring liability.' Blair v. Physicians Mut. Ins. Co., 242 Neb. 652, 656, 496 N.W.2d 483, 486 (1993). This maxim applies equally to public employees. Myers v. Nebraska Equal Opp. Comm., 255 Neb. 156, 582 N.W.2d 362 (1998); Smith v. City of Omaha, 220 Neb. 217, 369 N.W.2d 67 (1985). If no evidence is submitted indicating the employment relationship status, a court will find that the relationship was at will. See Smith, supra . Finding no statute to the contrary, in order for the Union to assert a due process violation, the employment contract (the CBA) must provide for substantive restrictions upon the right of discharge. See Loudermill, supra . A review of the CBA leads us to the conclusion that the employees had no protected interest in continued employment. Article 3 of the CBA provides that the Union recognize that the County has the following rights: (g) The right at any time to determine, create, modify, and terminate jobs, job vacancies, departments, job classifications, and job duties; .... (i) The right to discipline, suspend, and discharge employees, as set forth in this contract; (j) The right to lay off at any time. The procedure provided to terminate an employee's employment states, in article 16: If it becomes necessary to decrease staff or employees for any reason, including financial reasons or for reduction of work, the Supervisor or the Otoe County Commissioners may separate any employee, without prejudice, after 15 days written notice. We conclude that the CBA did not provide the discharged employees with a property interest in continued employment. Thus, the discharged employees were not entitled to the due process procedures described in Loudermill, supra, and the Union's assignment of error on this issue fails.