Document: 426 U.S. 482 96 S.Ct. 2308 49 L.Ed.2d 1 HORTONVILLE JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. et al., Petitioners,v.HORTONVILLE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION al. No. 74-1606. Argued Feb. 23-24, 1976. Decided June 17, Syllabus After negotiations for renewal of a collective-bargaining contract between respondent teachers and petitioner Wisconsin School Board failed to produce agreement, the went on strike in direct violation law. The thereafter conducted individual disciplinary hearings. Through counsel, striking advised that they wished be treated as group, contended was not sufficiently impartial properly discipline them. terminated teachers' employment, whereupon brought this suit, contending, Inter alia, hearing inadequate meet due process requirements. state trial court granted Board's motion summary judgment. Supreme Court reversed, holding procedure followed by had violated federal requirements since an decisionmaker required resolve controversy impartial. Since law afforded no adequate remedy, provided after notice fire teacher hearing, dissatisfied with decision could secure De novo from county record All issues. Held : Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment did guarantee terminate their employment would made or reviewed body other than Board. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 471, 92 2593, 33 484; distinguished. Pp. 489-497. (a) does support respondents' contention members personal official stake dismissal sufficient disqualify 491-492. (b) Mere familiarity facts case gained agency performance its statutory role decisionmaker, Withrow Larkin, 421 35, 47, 95 1456, 1464, 43 712; FTC Cement Institute, 333 683, 700-703, 68 793, 803-804, L.Ed. 1010, here participation pursuant duty disqualifying factor. 492-494. (c) Board, whom State has vested policy-making function, is overall responsibility governing school district, are accountable voters how discharge duties, one which employ dismiss teachers. Permitting make policy at issue preserves control over district affairs, leaving balance power aspect labor relations where legislature placed it. 495-496/ 66 Wis.2d 469, 225 N.W.2d 658, reversed remanded. Robert H. Friebert, Milwaukee, Wis., respondents. Jack D. Walker, petitioners. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. We certiorari determine whether members, teachers, could, consistent Amendment, engaged prohibited 2 * petitioners seven three administrative employees district. Respondents suing behalf all Hortonville Education Association (HEA), agent district's 3 During 1972-1973 year worked under master agreement; were contract, but agreement reached 1973-1974 year. continued work while proceeded during without reaching agreement. On March 18, 1974, union strike, 20, superintendent sent letter inviting them return work; few so. 23, he another letter, asking 86 still return, reminding strikes public illegal; none these returned work. conducting classes substitute 26 27, decided conduct hearings each strike. Individual notices setting April 1, 2, 3. 4 most appeared before counsel. Their attorney indicated want hearings, preferred group. Although counsel agreed raised several procedural objections He also argued exercise independent, unbiased decisionmaker. An offer proof tendered demonstrate been provoked failure demands, asked cross-examine individually. rejected request, permitted proof, aimed showing offers unsatisfactory, used coercive illegal bargaining tactics, locked out 5 voted effect. However, same invited reapply teaching positions. One accepted invitation hired replacements fill remaining 6 then filed suit against court, alleging, among things, comply judgment claim. found although retained property interest positions Court's decisions Perry Sindermann, 593, 2694, 590 (1972), Regents Roth, 564, 2701, 548 (1972). concluded only question law, evidence mitigation relevant. It claim denied process, admitted receiving including warning 7 appeal, 658 (1975). single now presented it held Federal Constitution response evaluated rationale appears being available remedies dismissal, injunction prohibiting call mediation, bargaining. Relying our 484 "it seem essential, even cases undisputed stipulated facts, charged determining what action shall taken basis those facts." Wis.2d, 493, N.W.2d, 671. choice: "The background giving rise ultimate reveals situation conducive detachment impartiality part board." Ibid. In conclusion, acknowledged forums; reviewing give opportunity "another course such injunction, collective arbitration have more reasonable decisionmaker." Id., 496, 672. 8 fashioned thought necessary principles. To leave "(a)s much possible . set manage school," should first instance. A petition any issues; "resolve factual disputes provide disposition." 498, 673. recognized remedy "not ideal because may better left legislative body." But suffice "until time until provides means establish forum will process." 9 court's reliance process. 423 821, 34, 46 37 reverse. II 10 District common financed local taxes aid governed elected seven-member Wis.Stat.Ann. §§ 120.01, 120.03, 120.06 (1973). broad "the possession, care, management affairs district." § 120.12(1); see 120.08, 120.10, 120.15-120.17. negotiates terms Municipal Employment Relations Act, 111.70 Et seq. (1974), contracts statute 118.22(2).1 11 sole prohibits making admittedly persistently refusing duties.2 termination within authority. 479-481, 663-665. are, course, bound accept interpretation highest State. Groppi Wisconsin, 400 505, 507, 91 490, 491, 27 571 (1971); Kingsley Pictures Corp. Regents, 360 684, 688, 79 1362, 1365, 1512 (1959). therefore involved discretion done carry duties 12 argue, held, choice analogous revocation parole supra, considered challenge procedures employed revoking prisoners. There we noted two steps: First, inquiry parolee fact conditions his parole; second, violations serious enough justify consequent deprivation parolee's conditional liberty. With respect second step, observed: 13 involves application expertise authority prediction ability live society committing antisocial acts. This decision, too, depends important board know some committed accurately many were. Yet deciding do about once identified, purely predictive discretionary." U.S., 480, S.Ct., 2599. 14 Nothing step Morrissey, respondents argue is, constitutional purposes, revoke parole. cannot "reasonable" issue, biased fashion guarantees prohibit.3 15 arose materially different context. there occur place distant finally made; risk error, misidentification. minimize risk, held: "(D)ue requires arrest (for violation), determination ground exists someone directly case." 485, 2602. must read earlier discussion officer's counselor confidant parolee; officer who, preliminary information, decides parolee. equated arresting officer; like board, plenary derived legislature. General language concerning reliable dealing employer cause. focus clearly on, first, nature bias attribute and, interests case. B 16 Respondents' argument rests doctrines They dismissed, comparable saw Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 47 437, 71 749 (1927), Ward Village Monroeville, 409 57, 93 80, 34 267 (1972); Gibson Berryhill, 411 1689, 36 488 (1973), manifested bitterness toward aroused criticism see, E. g., Taylor Hayes, 418 488, 94 2697, 41 897 (1974); Mayberry Pennsylvania, 455, 499, 532 (1971). Even assuming standards when employees, show, courts find, kind financial might create conflict interest, nothing charges animosity. careful suggest anything dedicated servants, trying quality education .4 limited budget." 494, That analysis confirmed repeated invitations work, final contained notified discharge. 17 factor suggested preceded precipitated Participation involvement, more, disqualified dismissed: 18 thus representative, HEA. difficult imagine frustration broke down, resorted concerted activity. uninvolved events make." 493-494, 19 not, however, 712 (1975); 1010 (1948). Nor simply position, public, related dispute, absence "capable judging particular fairly own circumstances." United States Morgan, 313 409, 421, 61 999, 1004, 85 1429 (1941); 701, 803. 20 reduce negotiated learned reasons negotiating. From premises lost persistent refusal amounted warrant strikers. statutes vest every employer, not. permits strip otherwise unremarkable Legislature given if prior involvement negotiating act consistently C 21 repeatedly term "negates concept inflexible universally applicable imaginable situation." Cafeteria Workers McElroy, 367 886, 895, 81 1743, 1748, 1230 (1961). Determining take into account individual's well State's See Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, 893, (1976); Arnett Kennedy, 416 134, 168, 1633, 1651, 40 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring); 188, 1661 (White, concurring dissenting); Goldberg Kelly, 397 254, 263-266, 90 1011, 1018-1019, 25 287 (1970). Our assessment parties leads conclusion very negotiator decide maintaining uninterrupted classroom discharged. 22 proceedings self-evident. avoid obviously examined light factors. stoppage, possibility erroneous critical threshold issue. Moreover, right expectation jobs go remain open least essence defining quarrel conclusion. claimed compared liberty note both deprivation" degree potential differ qualitative sense Morrissey. 341, 903. 23 governmental significantly considerations, main turn view "seriousness" factors urge mitigated adjudicative obligation based answer policy: What alternative responses best serve system, parents children who depend citizens whose it? incidentally decision; significant dimensions well. Summers, Public Employee Bargaining: Political Perspective, 83 Yale L.J. 1156 (1974). 24 vests governmental, policymaking, function exclusively keeping there. governance district; cope myriad dayto-day problems modern system severe consequences strike; virtue electing constituents declared qualified deal problems, manner perform. Second, struck area municipal relations; altering powers matter changes balance. leaves it, assures responsible law.5 III infected sort decisonmakers "involved" preceding legislature, overcome presumption honesty integrity policymakers decisionmaking power. Cf. 1464. Accordingly, hold remanded further inconsistent opinion. Reversed 28 STEWART, BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 29 decisionmakers. established "a (is) constitutionally unacceptable (and) 'our always endeavored prevent probability unfairness.' " 712, quoting re Murchison, 349 133, 136, 75 623, 625, 99 942. 30 order ascertain danger partiality, outcome examined. Here, controls discharged striking. present sharply divergent views requires. entrusted whereas contend unless sanction circumstances culminating 31 acknowledges, must, "bound State." Ante, 488. proceeds reverse assuming, urge, "involved (Board's) Board." dismisses version footnote. 490 n. 32 delineated state-law criterion governs wholly I remand whether, hand, considering reasonableness actions, other, free, today assumes, Under petitioners' involving system. require assess negotiations, indication outcome, partiality knowledge leading acquired through negotiation As notes, "(m)ere decisonmaker." 493. distinctly if, contend, evaluate impose Last Term "(a)llowing review raises present" 58 25, 1470. Apart considerations hostility, officials "directly recommendations complete objectivity evaluating them." 486, 2602, 484. 287. 35 "(U)nder realistic appraisal psychological tendencies human weakness," believe actions heated culminated If, therefore, correct, agree maker (teachers) law." For stated, vacate us Wisconsin. National Boards informs 45 lodge boards. Brief Amicus Curiae, 4. contracts, 1974-1975 year, deprived property. 489, 669 "Property created defined existing rules understandings stem independent source certain benefits claims entitlement benefits. 577, 2709, gave "legitimate job tenure." 602, 2700, 570 matters separate afford received inadequate, refused treat dismissals case-by-case basis. requirement premise "reasonableness" evaluation stance, "uninvolved" party decision. 58-59, 1470, clear, "reasonable," reading Amendment. relied largely upon interpreting holding. cited general statement Durkin Police & Fire Comm'rs, 48 112, 180 interpreted firemen policemen appeal Commissioners court; expressly "upon reasonable." 117, 62.13(5)(h) (1957). provision standard. Finally, requirement, test looks entity, makes semantic contemplated statute. Review, standard review, concepts hand hand. appropriate result alleged here, motivated antiunion animus addition vindictiveness, excused "decision possibly convenient eliminate fell swoop." Given respects proper prevented pursuing explicit which, judgment, desirable irrelevant turned, invalid can resort whatever provides. free defend authorized attempting dictated Policymaking prudential prepared say judge generally or, case, good intimately familiar needs suspending operations, wend way judicial processes mandated More important, arguments judge, electorate privilege oral

Category: 3