Document: 426 U.S. 341 96 S.Ct. 2074 48 L.Ed.2d 684 Carl D. BISHOP, Petitioner,v.W. H. WOOD, etc., et al. No. 74-1303. Argued March 1, 1976. Decided June 10, Syllabus On respondent Chief of Police's recommendation, City Manager terminated petitioner's employment as a policeman without hearing, telling him privately that the dismissal was based on failure to follow orders, poor attendance at police training classes, causing low morale, and conduct unsuited an officer. A city ordinance provides permanent employee (as petitioner classified) may be discharged if he fails perform work up standard his classification, or is negligent, inefficient, unfit duties. Petitioner brought suit against respondents, claiming "permanent employee" had constitutional right pretermination hearing; ordinance, even though not expressly so providing, should read prohibit discharge for any reason other than those specified therefore confer tenure all employees; period service, together with "permanent" gave sufficient expectation continued constitute protected property interest under Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment; false explanation deprived in liberty by Clause. During pretrial discovery again advised reasons dismissal. The District Court granted respondents' motion summary judgment, holding, basis its understanding state law, "held position will pleasure city." Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. Under Court's tenable view which upheld accepted this absence authoritative state-court interpretation involved, did deprive Amendment. Pp. 343-347. 2. Assuming false, must do since judgment entered him, such 347-349. (a) Since Manager's private oral communication never made public, it cannot properly form claim "good name, reputation, honor, integrity" thereby impaired. Nor can during provide retroactive support claim, course judicial proceeding commence until after suffered alleged injury. 348-349. (b) truth falsity manager's determines whether decision correct prudent, but neither enhances nor diminishes constitutionally P. 349. Affirmed. See 498 F.2d 1341. Norman B. Smith, Greensboro, N. C., petitioner. Charles E. Burgin, Marion, respondents. Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 Acting recommendation Police, affording hearing determine sufficiency cause discharge. contending classified employee," hearing.1 certain several officers filed affidavits essentially denying these charges. defendants' judgment.2 affirmed,3 we certiorari, 423 890, 185, 46 121. 2 questions us decide are (1) status Amendment,4 (2) assuming 3 * employed Marion probationary 9, 1969. After six months became employee. He dismissed 31, 1972. claims either express implied employment. 4 duties.5 first contends does provide, reason, employees. In addition, expectancy interest. 5 can, course, created contract.6 case, however, entitlement decided reference law.7 North Carolina Supreme has held enforceable public State exist only employer, statute contract, actually some guarantee. Still v. Lance, 279 N.C. 254, 182 S.E.2d 403 (1971). Whether guarantee been given determined examination particular question. 6 face relies fairly conferring However, reading possible interpretation; also construed granting no merely conditioning employee's removal compliance procedures.8 We have court. do, United States Judge who, sits practiced law there many years. Based concluded city."9 This construction Fourth Circuit, albeit equally divided comparable circumstances, concurred state-law issue guidance might justified different conclusion.10 7 determination adequacy grounds subject review; procedural rights found violated case. tenable; derives from Court, supra ; Circuit. These foreclose our independent issue. 8 II 9 Petitioner's two components. serious stigma severely damage reputation community; were false. 10 appraisal accept version facts him.11 His evidence established competent officer; respected peers; more arrests officer force; although criticized engaging high-speed pursuits, promptly heeded criticism; reasonable imperfect sessions. assume mistake incorrect information. 11 Board Regents Roth, 408 564, 92 2701, 33 548, recognized nonretention untenured college teacher make somewhat less attractive employers, nevertheless would stretch concept far "to suggest person 'liberty' when simply rehired one job remains free before seek another." Id., 575, 2708. same conclusion applies whose terminable employer disclosure 12 case asserted communicated orally stated writing answer interrogatories litigation commenced. former integrity"12 And latter injury seeks redress, surely claim. contrary evaluation penalize forthright truthful between instance, litigants latter. 13 argues, Even so, impact they true. answers interrogatories, true statement impaired.13 contention enable every assert alleging supervisor mistake. 14 federal court appropriate forum review multitude personnel decisions daily agencies.14 harsh fact numerous individual mistakes inevitable day-to-day administration affairs. Constitution feasibly require error. motivated desire curtail exercise rights, presume official action regular and, erroneous, best corrected ways. Amendment ill-advised decisions. 15 16 So ordered. 17 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL concurs, dissenting. 18 insubordination, "causing morale," "conduct officer." Ante, 343. It difficult imagine greater "badge infamy" could imposed following calling; provision prospective employees invariably investigated, prospects constricted governmental Although appear thus accorded opportunity clear name" calumny, see, g., 573, n. 12, 2707, 548 (1972); Arnett Kennedy, 416 134, 157, 94 1633, 1645, 40 (1974) (opinion Rehnquist, J.), condones holds thereby. 19 Paul Davis, 424 693, 1155, 47 405 (1976), overtly hostile basic safeguards Clauses Fifth Amendments I hoped "short-lived aberration," 735, S.Ct., 1177 (Brennan, J., dissenting), "interest (Paul) "liberty' 'property' guaranteed deprivation due process law." 712, 1166. Accordingly, inapplicable rule "(w)here person's good integrity stake because what government doing notice heard essential." Wisconsin Constantineau, 400 433, 437, 91 507, 510, 27 515 (1971), cases cited therein. eviscerated substance long line prior cases, Anti-Fascist Comm. McGrath, 123, 71 624, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951); Cafeteria Workers McElroy, 367 886, 81 1743, 1230 (1961); supra, confining their protection "liberty" situations inflicts terminating U.S., 708, 1164. Compare 709-710, 1164-1165, 732-733, 1176 dissenting).1 Today effectively destroys last vestige holding tell being fired nonderogatory then turn around inform employers stigmatizing preclude future 20 purports limit "no discharge," 348 disclosed, believe respondents convey actual employers.2 responds asserting "after claim." Ibid. But "claim" arise officially branded way, purpose accord name; derogatory information records "publication" occurs shortly subvert post-deprivation name contemplated cases.3 required attempt vindicate further expansion personal interests writes out "life, liberty, property" another curtailment precious marks too recent 21 fully concur dissenting opinions WHITE BLACKMUN, forcefully demonstrate error "property" law. add strained local deems "tenable," 347, dispositive existence Vel non There certainly dimension definition Federal Constitution; encompass "a legitimate entitlement," 577, 2709, Can "existing rules understandings" derive "an source Such (emphasis supplied). certainly, least definitively securing interest, relevant inquiry objectively rely Cf. ("It ancient institution protect upon people lives, reliance arbitrarily undermined."4) At minimum, analysis common practices utilized expectations generated manner reasonably employees.5 disputed issues meet resolution, minimum remand factual development 22 observations not, "federal . agencies." 349.However, courts Are ensuring mandates followed agencies making pervasively influence lives affected thereby; fundamental premise help avoid "harsh fact" "incorrect decisions." 350. that, dictate arbitrary capricious action. 23 WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN join, 24 dissent majority rests proposition squarely addressed my correctly rejected Members (1974). 25 Bishop Police Department C. applicable provides: 26 "Dismissal. satisfactory over time shall notified way deficient satisfactory. If classification held, continues duties, Manager. Any written setting forth effective date request notice." (Emphasis added.) second sentence plainly conditions I. e., standard, negligence, inefficiency, unfitness job. below otherwise construe portion ordinance. part rejecting job, said, predating : 28 "It Article II, Section 6, City's Personnel Ordinance, hearing. Upon employee, appears both complied with." 377 F.Supp. 501, 504 (WDNC 1973). 29 Thus concluding "property interest" entitling "at city," ibid., relied described own Procedures determining cause, procedures include purports, 345, 8, construing Not condition means, clearly erroneous just stated.1 later eschew paragraph discussion kind decision, concludes: 30 "In Determination ." 347. 31 implicitly concedes supplies "grounds" them "adequate" fire majority's spite unequivocal language kinds rests, then, assuring dismiss cause. apparently sentences redefined, according majority, provided third redefined infringed followed. 32 precisely reasoning embraced three Supra. statutory removed 'such promote efficiency (the) service.' " 151-152, 1643 joined Burger,. Stewart, J.). Justices views went say: "But very section procedure 'cause' determined, omitted guarantees appellee insists mandated Constitution. Only bifurcating Act Congress conferred save said substantive limitations attached it. 152, 1643. on: 34 "Here itself conditioned accompanied grant 155, 1645. 35 Accordingly requirements. 36 Powell Blackmun. 37 "The plurality evidently nature appellee's necessarily defined limited accords protections statute. conclude governing extent lay seems me approach incompatible principles laid down Roth Sindermann. Indeed, lead directly whatever individual's statutorily accomplished time. misconceives origin process. That conferred, legislative grace, While legislature elect employment, authorize once safeguards. 166-167, 1650. 38 I, too, disagreed Rehnquist's opinion: 39 "I differ basically plurality's 'where inextricably intertwined right, litigant take bitter sweet,' 'the interest.' 1644, rationale quickly leads requires discharge, requisites satisfied dispensed all, post-termination." 177-178, 1656. Marshall Brennan Douglas observed: 41 "Accordingly, rejects REHNQUIST's argument arose statute, limitation protections, render benefit 'privilege' extended Government where prescribed termination procedure, matter how unfair. amount nothing return, verbal garb, thoroughly discredited distinction privileges seemed govern applicability process." 211, 1673. 42 now expressed Arnett. As suggested Arnett, "incompatible Sindermann."2 166, soon depart grants unless him. Having Constitution,3 applied connection 43 BRENNAN joins, 44 join WHITE's agree adopting legal principle specifically 45 feel, means think is. considered contained "for cause" renew teacher's contract End school year. create noted "does board terminate end year circumstances." N.C., 260, S.E.2d, 407. provision, observed, stood sharp contrast relating prescribing "it services acceptable remainder current year" added), required. present contains me, like pertaining such, municipality, but, instead, creates proper performs satisfactorily. point, steps U.S.C. § 1983, invoking jurisdiction 1343(3). sought reinstatement back-pay. defendants Manager, Marion. "person" within meaning defendant. Monroe Pape, 365 167, 187-192, 473, 484, 492. 501 three-judge panel affirmed, judge dissenting, 1341 (CA4 1974); rehearing en banc, affirmed "(N)or life, property, U.S.Const. Amdt. 14. Ordinance reads follows: Perry Sindermann, 593, 601, 2694, 2699, 570, 579, "person's purposes mutually explicit understandings invoke hearing." "Property interests, Rather, dimensions existing stem secure benefits benefits." 548. placed regulations involved 15. entitled protection. city" establishes No sheds light problem presented "Under Carolina, else appearing, duration party irrespective quality performance party. By G.S. 115-142(b), county education filing charges giving termination, heard. with. plaintiff F.Supp., 504. Durham Lumber Co., 363 522, 80 1282, 1371. Propper Clark, 337 472, 486-487, 69 1333, 1341-1342, 93 1480, stated: precise temporary receiver 977-b New York Civil Practice vested title virtue appointment, courts. Both faced question answered negative. dealing enter into judgments courts, hesitant overrule skilled states conclusions shown unreasonable." Township Hillsborough Cromwell, 326 620, 629-630, 66 445, 451, 90 358, "Petitioner makes effect Duke Power Co. (V. Board, 129 N.J.L. 449, A.2d 416; 131 275, 201,) controlling precedent turned. pay great deference judges 'who familiar intricacies trends practice.' Huddleston Dwyer, 322 232, 237, 64 1015, 1018, 88 1246. unable say Circuit erred applying closely analogous facts." MacGregor Mut. Life Assur. 315 280, 281, 62 607, 86 846, "No Michigan, State, Michigan attention. guidance, leave undisturbed purely experience circuit includes Michigan." resolve genuine disputes material favor Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 56(c); 139-140, 1637, 515, allied 405. deliberately lied. conceivably validity entirely unaffected cumulative impression represents significant retreat settled practice matter, instances judiciary agency reinstate extremely rare. clear. For adopt BRENNAN's remarkably innovative suggestion develop far-reaching almost implicates ultimate control relationships is, remain, States; withhold unfettered discretion. reject adopted lower power change clarify remain hands Council ignored import Goss Lopez, 419 565, 729, 725 (1975); 433 (1971); Jenkins McKeithen, 395 411, 89 1843, 404 (1969). 729-733, 1174-1176 dissenting). sense, sure, inquire service. asserts become known "would litigants." Of various sanctions system ensure testimony "forthright truthful" necessitating denial rights. suppose declare postdeprivation communicates similarly discourage situation. mechanism clearing cloud "truthful." "unfettered discretion" defining Constitution, see 349-350, 14, Brother More basically, resurrection rights/privileges distinction, attendant loss necessities cf. Goldberg Kelly, 397 1011, 287 (1970), labelling constituting "property." also, g. Bell Burson, 402 535, 1586, Fuentes Shevin, 407 67, 556 Morrissey Brewer, 471, 2593, 484 (1972). example, hired "probationary" months, record logical assumption, confirmed completion period, "cause." practices, important note department currently employs persons, otherwise, years hiring discovery. accepts city. believes rest permitting, limiting, discharges causes view, made. Termination complete discretion city; call indicated text, (1972), 570 intimates, 345n. Kennedy Statute Involved construed. incorrect. All agreed remarks quoted above indicate, significance plurality. Similarly, here, disagree did, inclined defer says receive explanation, review. remedy erroneously acted. means. respect unambiguous Required

Category: 3