Court Opinion

ID: 9485847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:31:54.846227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:23.959353
License: Public Domain

BECKER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I join in Part I of the majority opinion, I cannot agree with the conclusion in Part II that the plaintiff was afforded due process in connection with his pre-termi-nation hearing.
The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause entitles a public employee to a pre-termination hearing. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542-43, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1493-94, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). Although the Court has made it clear that the hearing need not be elaborate and, in fact, may be quite informal, it has identified notice to the employee and an opportunity to be heard as the two essential elements of a constitutionally adequate pre-termination hearing. See id. at 545-46, 105 S.Ct. at 1495. While Edmundson’s pre-ter-mination hearing afforded him adequate notice of his discharge and the ostensible reasons for it, in my view it failed to provide him a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The pre-termination hearing consisted of a meeting among: Edmundson; Kennett Square’s mayor, Robert Goddu; Kennett Square’s Borough Council President, Kenneth Roberts;, and Kennett Square Council-member, Herbert Waltz. At this meeting, Mayor Goddu explained to Edmundson why there was dissatisfaction with Edmundson’s performance as a police officer — i.e., his failure to follow orders and his failure to follow police procedures regarding accompanying an arrestee to the hospital. Borough Council President Roberts explained to Edmundson that he had the “option” of resigning or else being fired by the municipality. In other words, Edmundson was given an ultimatum in the nature of a Hobson’s choice. When Edmundson tried to explain the reasons for his performance and his alleged departure from police procedures, he was interrupted by Mayor Goddu, who informed him that he “didn’t wish to argue each point” with him. Finally, at the conclusion of the hearing, Roberts again advised Edmundson of his option to resign or have his employment terminated by action of the council.
It is, to say the least, troubling that Ed-mundson was given an ultimatum of resigning or waiting to be fired, which strongly suggests that the decisionmakers at his pre-termination hearing had already made up their minds regarding his discharge. More importantly, Edmundson was not afforded his constitutionally-mandated opportunity to be heard because he was interrupted when he attempted to explain the reasons for his actions as a police officer. The Court has made it clear that an opportunity to be heard consists of a chance for an employee to “present his side of the story,” see id. at 546, 105 S.Ct. at 1495, which is precisely what Mayor Goddu prevented by interrupting Ed-*195mundson and informing him that he was not interested in hearing his explanation. Under these circumstances, I would hold that Ed-mundson was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard in contravention of his due process rights. I thus respectfully dissent from Part II of the majority opinion.