Court Opinion

ID: 9429709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:27:42.231668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:11.367985
License: Public Domain

Justice Brennan,
with whom Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982), the Court decided that Government officials seeking to establish qualified immunity must show that the acts or omissions violating the plaintiff’s rights were objectively reasonable — specifically, that the conduct at issue did not “violate clearly estab*198lished statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id., at 818. The Court today does not purport to change that standard. Yet it holds that, despite discharging a civil service employee in 1977 without meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard, appellants are entitled to immunity from a suit for damages. The Court reaches this decision essentially by ignoring both the facts of this case and the law relevant to appellants’ conduct at the time of the events at issue. In my view, appellants plainly violated appellee’s clearly established rights and the Court’s conclusion to the contrary seriously dilutes Harlow’s careful effort to preserve the availability of damages actions against governmental officials as a critical “avenue for vindication of constitutional guarantees.” Id., at 814. Accordingly, I dissent from that portion of the judgment reversing the award of damages.1
In order to determine whether a defendant has violated a plaintiff’s clearly established rights, it would seem necessary to make two inquiries, both of which are well within a court’s familiar province: (1) which particular act or omission of the defendant violated the plaintiff’s federal rights, and (2) whether governing case or statutory law would have given a reasonable official cause to know, at the time of the relevant events, that those acts or omissions violated the plaintiff’s rights. The Court, however, asks neither question. Its brief treatment of the issue includes no reference to the District Court’s findings of fact with respect to the conduct at issue here. This is not surprising since those findings— which were affirmed summarily by the Court of Appeals and which appellants do not claim to be clearly erroneous — demonstrate that appellee was never informed that he might be fired for violating regulations against dual employment. *199Nor did appellee ever have an opportunity to persuade the relevant decisionmaker that he should not be disciplined.
The regulation appellee was ultimately fired for violating required only that Patrol members receive prior approval of outside employment, in order to avoid conflicts of interest with regular duties. 543 F. Supp. 4, 8 (ND Fla. 1981). Upon request, appellee obtained approval from his troop commander for part-time work as a security guard on a movie set. Some three weeks later, the commander revoked the approval and there followed an exchange of memos between appellee’s immediate superiors and the commander indicating that appellee did not wish to relinquish the part-time job. Apparently without informing appellee, the commander then recommended to the director of the Highway Patrol, Col. Beach, that appellee be suspended for three days and, nearly a week later, an intermediate superior ordered appellee to terminate his outside employment. On the same day, appel-lee wrote to the commander, stating that he did not believe his outside work caused any conflict of interest. Although some officials in the Department suggested to each other ways in which appellee’s work might create a conflict, “[n]o one ever identified the conflict to plaintiff; [and the superior who had ordered appellee to terminate the job] testified he didn’t know what the conflict was.” Ibid. Meanwhile, Beach, the official with authority to terminate appellee, received copies of the various letters that had been exchanged and, without informing appellee or soliciting his views, decided to discharge him. As the District Court summarized:
“By certified letter dated October 24, 1977 and received by plaintiff on October 25, 1977, Scherer was terminated from his FHP employment effective October 20, 1977. At no time prior to the letter of termination was the plaintiff given notice in writing of a proposed discharge or an opportunity to respond verbally or in writing to the official charged with making the termination decision, *200the defendant Beach. At no time prior to October 25, 1977, was the plaintiff notified of any right that he might have to respond to Col. Beach’s letter of dismissal.” Id., at 8-9.
The District Court further found that two other Highway Patrol employees in appellee’s troop had been given approval to engage in the very same secondary employment for which appellee was fired, and their approval “was never revoked.” Id., at 8, n. 1. Moreover, after being terminated, appellee successfully argued before a Florida administrative officer that the regulation prohibiting dual employment had not been validly adopted and was therefore void. Id., at 9. In short, although appellee was warned not to continue the second employment, he had no reason to believe prior to being fired that retention of the second job constituted grounds for termination, and indeed he had several reasons for believing otherwise. Nor did he have any opportunity to challenge, before the relevant decisionmaker, either his termination or the underlying conclusion that his retention of the second job created a conflict of interest.
By failing to warn appellee that his conduct could result in deprivation of his protected property interest in his Highway Patrol job and by denying him an opportunity to challenge that deprivation, appellants violated the most fundamental requirements of due process of law — meaningful notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Contrary to the Court’s conclusion, these requirements were “clearly established” long before October 25, 1977, the date on which appellee learned he was fired. As long ago as 1914, the Court emphasized that “[t]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.” Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. S. 385, 394. In 1925, the Court explained that a government failure to afford reasonable notice of the kinds of conduct that will result in deprivations of liberty and property “violates the first essential of due process of law.” Connally *201v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391. And in several decisions in the 1950’s, the Court concluded that public employees have interests in maintaining their jobs that cannot be abridged without due process. E. g., Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U. S. 551 (1956); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183 (1952); see Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 576-577 (1972).
In January 1972, nearly six years prior to appellee’s termination, the Court reaffirmed that
“[bjefore a person is deprived of a protected interest, he must be afforded opportunity for some kind of a hearing, ‘except for extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until af ter the event. ’ Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 379. ‘While “[m]any controversies have raged about... the Due Process Clause,”... it is fundamental that except in emergency situations (and this is not one) due process requires that when a State seeks to terminate [a protected] interest ... , it must afford “notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case” before the termination becomes effective.’ Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535, 542. For the rare and extraordinary situations in which we have held that deprivation of a protected interest need not not be preceded by opportunity for some kind of hearing, see, e. g., Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 566; Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U. S. 589, 597; Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U. S. 594.” Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, at 570, n. 7.
Similarly, in 1974, based on an exhaustive review of our cases, Justice White explained that “where there is a legitimate entitlement to a job, as when a person is given employment subject to his meeting certain specific conditions, due process requires, in order to insure against arbitrariness by the State in the administration of its law, that *202a person be given notice and a hearing before he is Anally discharged.” Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134, 185 (concurring in part and dissenting in part). See id., at 170 (opinion of Powell, J.,); id., at 203 (Douglas, J., dissenting); id., at 212-227 (Marshall, J., dissenting). And finally, in February 1976, more than a year and a half prior to appellee’s termination, Justice Powell summarized for the Court fundamental legal principles whose sources could be traced to cases from the 19th century:
“Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of liberty’ or 'property’ interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment. . . . This Court consistently has held that some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property interest. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 557-558 (1974). See, e. g., Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U. S. 589, 596-597 (1931). See also Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 124-125 (1889). The ‘right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society.’ Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 552 (1965). See Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. S. 385, 394 (1914).” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 332-333 (1976).
See also Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (1972); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645 (1972); Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U. S. 207 (1971) (per curiam); *203Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433 (1971); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337 (1969).
If there were any ambiguity in the repeated pronouncements of this Court, appellants had several other reasons to know that their failure to afford appellee meaningful pre-termination notice and hearing violated due process. Two years prior to appellee’s discharge, the Florida Attorney General explained in an official opinion that “[c]areer service . employees who have attained permanent status in the career service system have acquired a property interest in their public positions and emoluments thereof — such as job security and seniority which they may not be deprived of without due process of law.” Fla. Op. Atty. Gen. 075-94, p. 161 (1975). And more than a year before the events at issue here, in a case involving the Jacksonville, Fla., City Civil Service Board, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit left no doubt as to what it thought “clearly established” law required:
“Where a governmental employer chooses to postpone the opportunity of a nonprobationary employee to secure a full-evidentiary hearing until after dismissal, risk reducing procedures must be accorded. These must include prior to termination, written notice of the reasons for termination and an effective opportunity to rebut those reasons. Effective rebuttal must give the employee the right to respond in writing to the charges made and to respond orally before the official charged with the responsibility of making the termination decision.” Thurston v. Dekle, 531 F. 2d 1264, 1273 (1976), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 438 U. S. 901 (1978).
Finally, some two months prior to appellee’s discharge, the Florida Highway Patrol issued a regulation undoubtedly intended to conform administrative practice with decisions like *204Thurston.2 The regulation, which has the force of statutory law, see 543 F. Supp., at 20, provides in pertinent part:
“Upon receiving a report of ... a violation of Department or Division rules and regulations . . . the Director shall order a complete investigation to determine the true facts concerning the circumstances surrounding the alleged offense. The completed investigation report will also contain a written statement made by the employee against whom the complaint was made. If after a thorough study of all information concerning the violation, the Director decides that a . . . dismissal will be in order, he will present the employee in writing with the reason or reasons for such actions.” General Order No. 43, §1.C (Sept. 1, 1977), quoted in 543 F. Supp., at 19-20.
The Court ignores most of this evidence demonstrating the objective unreasonableness of appellants’ conduct. Instead, the Court relies first on Weisbrod v. Donigan, 651 F. 2d 334 (CA5 1981) (per curiam), as “authoritative precedent” for the proposition that appellee’s right to pretermination notice and a hearing was not “well established in the Fifth Circuit at the *205time of the conduct in question.” Ante, at 192. In Weis-brod, the Court of Appeals simply declared — without citation to any of the cases just discussed, including its own decision in Thurston — that “the record indicates defendants did not act in disregard of any well-settled constitutional rights” and that “Weisbrod offers no authority indicating the failure to hold a pretermination hearing and the delay in the process of her administrative appeal were clear violations of her constitutional rights.” 651 F. 2d, at 336. It is unclear from the court’s brief per curiam opinion whether Weisbrod — unlike appellee in this case — was informed prior to discharge that her conduct constituted grounds for termination. See id., at 335. In any event, the Court of Appeals’ dubious and cursory ipse dixit in Weisbrod, rendered four years after the conduct at issue in this case, is hardly persuasive, much less controlling, authority for this Court’s decision that appellee’s rights were not clearly established in 1977.
The other basis for the Court’s rejection of appellee’s claim is an assertion that it was not “unreasonable in this case, under Fourteenth Amendment principles, for the Department to conclude that appellee had been provided with the fundamentals of due process.” Ante, at 192. The Court seeks to support this statement by relying on the fact that appellee had been told to discontinue his second job and that he “took advantage of several opportunities to present his reasons for believing that he should be permitted to retain his part-time employment. . . .” Ibid. Appellee did not, however, have an opportunity to present his reasons for retaining his civil service job with the Florida Highway Patrol — the employment in which he had a protected property interest. See 543 F. Supp., at 12. Indeed, he was, according to the District Court, never told that his Highway Patrol job was in jeopardy, and he never had a chance to try to persuade the relevant decisionmaker that the second job did not create a conflict of interest. The Court concedes that our decisions by 1978 had required notice and “ ‘some kind of a hearing’. . . *206prior to discharge of an employee who had a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment.” Ante, at 192, n. 10. In this case, appellee received no meaningful notice and no kind of hearing before the official who fired him.
In sum, I believe that appellants’ actions “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow, 457 U. S., at 818, and I would therefore affirm the District Court’s award of damages.

 agree that the District Court erred in declaring the new Florida civil service statute unconstitutional, see ante, at 189, and therefore concur in that portion of the judgment vacating paragraph 2 of the District Court’s amended order. See 543 F. Supp. 4, 21 (ND Fla. 1981).

 Because I believe appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity under the standards set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982), I need not consider whether, as appellee contends, violation of the department regulation would defeat immunity for violating federal rights of which the officials had no reasonable knowledge. It seems plain to me, however, that the existence of the regulation is relevant to the Harlow analysis. Regardless of whether this Court or the Court of Appeals now thinks appellee’s right to pretermination notice and hearing was not “clearly established” in 1977, the presence of a clear-cut regulation obviously intended to safeguard public employees’ constitutional rights certainly suggests that appellants had reason to believe they were depriving appellee of due process. Cf. Harlow, supra, at 821 (Brennan, J., concurring). Such an objective basis of knowledge provides at least as reliable a measure of the reasonableness of official action as does a court’s post hoc parsing of cases. See 457 U. S., at 815-819.