Legal Document

520 U.S. 924117 S.Ct. 1807138 L.Ed.2d 120 James E. GILBERT, President, East Stroudsburg University, et al., Petitioners,v.Richard HOMAR. No. 96-651. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 24, 1997. Decided June 9, Syllabus * On August 26, 1992, while employed as a policeman at University (ESU), Pennsylvania state institution, respondent was arrested by State Police and charged with drug felony. Petitioners, ESU officials, suspended him without pay, effective immediately, pending their own investigation. Although criminal charges were dismissed on September 1, his suspension remained in effect. 18, he provided opportunity to tell side story officials. Subsequently, demoted groundskeeper. He then filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming, inter alia, that petitioners' failure provide notice hearing before suspending pay violated due process. The District granted petitioners summary judgment, but Third Circuit reversed. Held: In circumstances here, did not violate process failing tenured public employee pay. Pp. ____-____. (a) Cleveland Bd. Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 532, 105 1487, 84 494, this held being fired dismissable only for cause entitled limited pre-termination hearing, be followed more comprehensive post-termination hearing. erred relying dictum Loudermill conclude must also preceded Due is flexible calls such procedural protections particular situation demands. Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 481, 92 2593, 2600, 33 484; FDIC Mallen, 486 230, 240, 108 1780, 1787-88, 100 265. (b) Three factors are relevant determining what constitutionally due: (1) private interest will affected official action; (2) risk an erroneous deprivation through procedures used, probable value, if any, additional or substitute safeguards; (3) Government's interest. Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, 335, 96 893, 903, 47 18. Respondent asserts uninterrupted paycheck; account taken length finality temporary Logan Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 422, 434, 102 1148, 1157, 71 So long receives sufficiently prompt post-suspension lost income relatively insubstantial, fringe benefits health life insurance often all. other balance, has significant immediately employees felonies who occupy positions trust visibility, police officers. While could have been accommodated Constitution does require government give felony paid leave taxpayer expense. remaining factor most important case: purpose pre-suspension hearing-to assure there reasonable grounds support cf. supra, 545-546, S.Ct., 1495-has already assured arrest filing charges. See FDIC, supra. That may discretion suspend mean had given persuade officials innocence decision made. id., 234-235, 1784-1785. (c) Whether received adequately post -suspension should considered first instance. 89F. 3d 1009, reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Gwendolyn T. Mosley, Harrisburg, PA, petitioners. Ann Hubbard, amicus curiae, special V. Fareri, Stroudsburg, Respondent. Gregory O'Duden, Washington, DC, National Treasury Employees Union Justice SCALIA 1 This case presents question whether violates Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment 2 Richard J. Homar officer branch Pennsylvania's System Higher Education. when home family friend, raid. Later day, complaint charging possession marijuana, intent deliver, conspiracy controlled substance law, which notified respondent's supervisor, Chief David Marazas, Marazas turn informed Gerald Levanowitz, ESU's Director Human Resources, whom President Gilbert delegated authority discipline employees. Levanowitz immediately. failed report work day arrest, learned next called inquire suspended. same letter from confirming 26 investigation into against him. explained any action would necessarily coincide disposition 3 effect continued its met order story. meeting information "very serious nature,'' Record, Doc. p. 48, included alleged confession made arrest; consequently unable respond damaging statements attributed report. 4 dated 23, position groundskeeper receive backpay date took rate —(Respondent eventually period university officer.) maintained demotion imposed "as result admissions yourself 1992 you associations individuals knew dealing large quantities marijuana obtained one those your use. Your actions constitute clear flagrant violation Sections 200 200.2 [ESU] Department Manual.'' App. 82a. Upon receipt letter, president union requested Gilbert. place point read containing confession. After providing charges, sustained demotion. 5 Rev. Stat. §1979, Middle Gilbert, Vice ESU, Curtis English, all both individual capacities. contended, heard entered judgment A divided Appeals Court's determination it permissible 89 F.3d 1009 (1996). We certiorari. 519 ----, 117 678, 136 604 (1997). II 6 apply perquisites employment protected "property'' we previously can discharged property tenure cannot process, see Board Regents Colleges Roth, 564, 578, 2701, 2709-2710, 548 (1972); Perry Sindermann, 593, 602-603, 2694, 2700-2701, 570 (1972), occasion decide extend short termination. however, do contest preliminary point, so deciding will, like Court, " [a]ssum[e] infringed interest,'' Pet. Cert. 59a, once contention due. 7 494 (1985), concluded very prior termination, Stressing pretermination "should initial check mistaken decisions-essentially, believe true proposed action,'' 1495, need include oral written explanation employer's evidence, story, 546, 1495. course our assessment governmental immediate termination employee, observed "in situations where employer perceives hazard keeping job, avoid problem '' Id., 544-545, 1495 (emphasis added; footnote omitted). 8 Relying dictum, "strongly suggest[ing] instances, F.3d, 1015 added), rule "eminently sensible,'' 1016, adopted categorical prohibition: [A] unless some kind heard.'' Ibid. (as well amici) makes no attempt defend absolute rule, spans types unpaid suspensions. Brief 8, 12-13. eminently wise, since precedents indefensible. 9 It now established ""[d]ue process,' unlike legal rules, technical conception fixed content unrelated time, circumstances.'' Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers McElroy, 367 886, 895, 81 1743, 1748, 1230 (1961). [D]ue demands.'' 484 (1972). recognized, many occasions, act quickly, impractical predeprivation postdeprivation satisfies requirements Clause. See, e.g., Daniel Good Real Property, 510 43, 53, 114 492, 500-501, 126 490 (1993); Zinermon Burch, 113, 128, 110 975, 984-985, (1990) (collecting cases); Barry Barchi, 443 55, 64-65, 99 2642, 2649-2650, 61 365 (1979); Dixon Love, 431 105, 115, 97 1723, 1729, 52 172 (1977); North American Cold Storage Co. Chicago, 211 306, 314-320, 29 101, 103-106, 53 L.Ed. 195 (1908). Indeed, Parratt Taylor, 451 527, 101 1908, 68 420 (1981), overruled part grounds, Daniels Williams, 474 327, 106 662, 88 662 (1986), specifically noted "we rejected proposition [due process] always requires property.'' U.S., 540, 1915. And 265 (1988), unanimously approved Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's suspension, indicted bank said: "An interest, accompanied substantial assurance baseless unwarranted, cases demanding justify postponing until after deprivation.'' 1787-1788.* 10 relied upon inconsistent these precedents. To say leaving job "can pay'' way avoiding problem. Whatever implication phrase "with might conveyed far outweighed clarity emphasize flexibility contrasted sweeping Appeals. B 11 determine due, generally balanced three distinct factors: 12 "First, second, finally, interest.'' 18 (1976). also, 242, 1788-1789; (1982). 13 contends paycheck. But opinions recognized severity depriving someone means livelihood, see, 243, 1789; 543, 1493-1494, they emphasized "the length'' "finality Logan, 1157 added). Unlike faced postsuspension insubstantial (compared termination), all, Amicus Curiae 18; 19, 7. 14 suspending, them, great high maintaining confidence think, If services longer useful charge filed, bear added expense hiring replacement still paying preserving force least State's integrity sport horse racing, 64, 2649, "deemed . brief affording trainer hearing,'' 241, 1788. 15 last balancing, resolution case, likely value procedures. Petitioners argue presuspension worthless because pursuant Executive Order Governor automatically [a]s soon practicable [being] formally felony.'' Pa.Code §7.173 According petitioners, supervisors mandatory lasts finally resolved. Tr. Oral Arg. 20. interpretation correct, nothing consider except independently verifiable fact indeed Codd Velger, 429 624, 627-628, 882, 883-884, 51 (1977). Compare 1493-1494. Respondent, challenges reading Code, event "mere directiv[e] do[es] confer legally enforceable right.'' resolve disputed issue law even assuming Code advisory (or application all), constitutional obligation "whether action.'' By parity reasoning, Cf. 1787-1788. here 16 "ex parte finding cause'' grand jury indictment provides adequate unjustified. 240-241, First, indictment, formal "by independent body demonstrat[e] arbitrary.'' 244, 1790. Second, imposition "itself objective raise concern.'' 244-245, true, argues, reason committed rather than merely charged; present purposes enough. They serve "baseless unwarranted,'' 1788, third party determined crime. 17 further agreed assume) despite disagree. 64 879, amended, §1818(g)(1); n. 5, 1784-1785, nevertheless necessary protect meaningful invoke decisionmaker takes effect,'' 1494, ample later-and delay actually allowing obtain accurate about "has seeing concerning her excessive haste.'' 1789. forced too maker "may greater weight place.'' C Much argument dedicated right open-ended "theoretically weeks, months, years pay.'' 23. But, himself downplay [b]ecause entitled, event, heard, amount during minimal.'' 24-25. 19 separate question. dropped (petitioners apparently 2), sort Once dropped, increased substantially, and, conceded argument, holding 19. 1789 (holding 90 days agency hears decides propriety exceed limits coupled minimize deprivation). Because neither nor addressed whether, facts instance, remand consideration 20 *** 21 reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 22 ordered. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. contends, Mallen expressly president's recites order, president; participation bank's affairs. Our certainly reflects assumption For example, discussing stake livelihood.'' (citing cases). And, argued "denial stream underwrite extraordinary expenses crucial, Mallen's financial condition general, ability defense.'' Appellee O.T.1987, 87-82, pp. 7-8.

Classification Label: 3