Document: 423 U.S. 6 96 S.Ct. 168 46 L.Ed.2d 148 Richard A. BOEHNING, etc., et al.v.INDIANA STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., al. No. 74-1544. Nov. 11, 1975. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent Musgrave, an employee of the Indiana State Highway Commission, was dismissed for cause, her request a pretermination hearing having been denied. She then brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit asserting rights rooted in Federal Constitution and seeking damages injunctive relief. The District Court held that controlling state statutes, as yet unconstrued by courts, might require demanded respondent so obviate decision on constitutional issue. It therefore abstained until construction statutes had sought courts. Appeals Seventh Circuit reversed, finding nothing language relevant would support claim resolving federal question respondent's favor. 2 We reverse. Where Administrative Adjudication Act is applicable, "(t)he final order or determination any issue case applicable to particular person shall not be made except upon timely notice time, place nature thereof." Ind.Code, 4-22-1-5 (1974). applies all issues cases persons "excluding . dismissal discharge officer superior officer, but including hearings cause where law authorizes directs such hearing." 4-22-1-2. may correct its "forecast," see Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 496, 499, 61 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941), when construed together Bipartisan Personnel System Act, which Commission employees neither expressly nor precludes termination hearings, has demanded. On other hand, statutory provisions fairly read extend respondent;* these circumstances we conclude right abstain from deciding pending resolution state-law Meridian Southern Bell T. & 358 639, 640, 79 455, 3 562 (1959); Reetz Bozanich, 397 82, 90 788, 25 68 (1970); Harman Forssenius, 380 528, 1177, 14 50 (1965); Fornaris Ridge Tool 400 41, 91 156, 27 174 supra. petition certiorari granted, judgment remanded further consideration consistent with opinion. 4 So ordered. 5 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. position continues strangulation recently evident. See, e. g., Huffman Pursue, Ltd., 420 592, 95 1200, 43 482 (1975). road longer more expensive than Congress planned. See Harrison NAACP, 360 167, 179-184, 1025, 1031-1034, 1152 (1959) (Douglas, J., dissenting). I affirm Appeals. * possibility courts adopt contrary somewhat enhanced fact adopted said raise problems under recent procedural due process decisions Court, Arnett Kennedy, 416 134, 94 1633, 40 15 (1974), particularly if, appears have assumed, leave without at time connection cause. reluctant attribute their legislature intention pass statute raising problems, unless legislative intent clear. Kent Dulles, 357 116, 129-130, 78 1113, 1119-1120, 1204 (1958); Johnson Robison, 415 361, 366-367, 1160, 39 389 Field, Abstention Constitutional Cases: Scope Doctrine, 122 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1071, 1117-1118 Although some already resolved favor Perry Sindermann, 408 593, 92 2694, 33 570 (1972); Board Regents Roth, 564, 2701, 548 supra, tenured employee's preremoval determined only context providing opportunity respond writing before removal coupled full after removal. concurring opinion Powell, 164, 170, S.Ct., 1649, 1652.

Category: 8