Court Opinion

ID: 9478010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:36:49.334386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:09.993627
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I agree that the majority reaches the correct result through an analysis that responds to the somewhat unusual and opaque arguments of the parties. That this is a procedural due process case requiring the existence of a property interest seems clear. That we are dealing with a problem in substantive due process seems much less clear, although the plaintiff must, in any event, lose under a substantive due process analysis. The equal protection claim perhaps offers more promise than the others because of the apparent disparity in the treatment of “rapid advanc-ers” and those who linger to serve their required probation. This does not, however, seem to be quite the argument that the plaintiff makes.
Smith was the holder of what amounts to a “battlefield commission.” She advanced through the ranks so rapidly that she was never left in one place long enough to complete a probationary period. Under the rules she points to no deprivation which can be deemed of constitutional dimension. But the rules, even if constitutional in their application, seem clearly deficient in allowing this bizarre scenario to unfold. It is certainly not evident why, with each promotion, an employee receives no credit for probationary time already served, to be applied to some lower classification level.