Court Opinion

ID: 9702121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:55:50.449692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:22.395027
License: Public Domain

MOYE, District Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority in the above case.
I do not believe that the dicta in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974), require, as a condition of constitutionality, the establishment of any rigid time limits, or any particular procedures prior to termination. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975), appears to confirm this analysis because Justice White said therein only that “some kind of notice” and “some kind of hearing” is required. In that case, it appears that a confrontation with the immediate disciplinarian himself was adequate.
As the majority point out, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held in Davis v. Vandiver, 494 F.2d 830, 832 (5 Cir. 1974), that where a full-scale evidentiary hearing is provided after termination (as here) it is only necessary that there be notice of the charge and a reasonable opportunity to respond prior to termination.
I do not believe that the evidence here will support a finding that the plaintiffs did not have a reasonable opportunity to respond prior to discharge. Logically, it would appear that any need for a pretermination response or confrontation in a situation such as is presented here would be simply to eliminate obvious errors, leaving decisions as to the finer points of judgment for the required post-termination full-scale hearing. A simple telephone call and 20 minutes of time may be adequate for that limited purpose. The record will not demonstrate to the contrary, and I believe that substantial evidence of a lack of practical due process ought to be required before this Court holds a law of the State of Georgia unconstitutional.