Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc.
95 L. Ed. 2d 239, 481 U.S. 252, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1814 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not require a full evidentiary hearing before the Secretary of Labor can order the temporary reinstatement of a discharged employee who alleges retaliatory firing. However, it does require that the employer be given notice of the employee's allegations, notice of the substance of the relevant supporting evidence, an opportunity to submit a written response, and an opportunity to present its side of the story before the temporary reinstatement order takes effect.
Facts:
- Roadway Express, Inc. (Roadway), an interstate trucking company, discharged one of its drivers, Jerry Hufstetler.
- Roadway alleged that Hufstetler had dishonestly disabled lights on his truck to get extra pay for waiting for repairs.
- Hufstetler contended he was not discharged for dishonesty, but in retaliation for previously complaining about safety violations.
- A contractually-mandated arbitration panel ruled that Hufstetler had been properly discharged.
- Following the arbitration, Hufstetler filed a complaint with the Department of Labor alleging his discharge violated the whistleblower protection provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (§ 405).
- During the subsequent investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Roadway was allowed to submit a written statement but was denied access to the names of other employee witnesses or the substance of their statements.
- The Department of Labor's investigator obtained statements from Hufstetler and other employees substantiating the retaliatory discharge claim.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry Hufstetler filed a complaint with the Department of Labor.
- After an investigation, the Secretary of Labor issued a preliminary order requiring Roadway Express to immediately reinstate Hufstetler.
- Roadway Express filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of Labor in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking an injunction and a declaratory judgment that § 405 was unconstitutional.
- The District Court granted Roadway's motion for a preliminary injunction, halting the reinstatement order.
- The District Court subsequently granted summary judgment for Roadway, declaring § 405 unconstitutional to the extent it allowed reinstatement without a prior evidentiary hearing.
- The Secretary of Labor made a direct appeal of the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause require the Secretary of Labor to provide an employer with a full evidentiary hearing, including the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, before ordering the temporary reinstatement of a discharged employee pursuant to § 405 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
No. The Fifth Amendment does not require a full evidentiary hearing prior to a temporary reinstatement order, but it does require minimum procedural safeguards that were not met here. A balancing of the interests at stake—the government's in highway safety, the employee's in their livelihood, and the employer's in controlling its workforce—shows that a full evidentiary hearing is not necessary before a temporary deprivation, so long as there is an initial check against mistaken decisions and a prompt post-deprivation hearing is available. However, minimum due process does require providing the employer with notice of the employee's allegations, the substance of the relevant supporting evidence, an opportunity to submit a written response, and a chance to meet with the investigator. Because Roadway was denied the substance of the evidence against it, it was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to respond, rendering the reinstatement order in this specific case unconstitutionally imposed.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
No, but the plurality's proposed procedures are insufficient. While agreeing that Roadway was unconstitutionally deprived of the evidence against it, a full evidentiary hearing with confrontation and cross-examination is necessary before an indefinite preliminary reinstatement. When factual disputes are central to the deprivation, pre-deprivation procedures are unreliable without the opportunity to test the evidence, especially when there is no guarantee of a prompt final hearing. The significant potential for delay in the post-reinstatement process makes a robust pre-reinstatement hearing essential to satisfy due process.
Concurring - Justice White
No, and the plurality goes too far in its requirements. A full trial-type hearing is not necessary before temporary reinstatement, and Roadway received all the process it was due. The Due Process Clause does not require the Secretary of Labor to provide the employer with witness names and the substance of their statements at the preliminary stage. The government's strong interest in protecting whistleblowers and encouraging the reporting of safety violations justifies withholding confidential witness information until the full administrative hearing.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, an evidentiary hearing should be required. The government's interest in highway safety does not justify the use of 'patently unfair procedures' that rely on secret evidence. The significant delay (11 months) between Hufstetler's complaint and the preliminary order demonstrates there is no 'emergency' that would justify circumventing a proper adversarial hearing. Cross-examination is a critical element of the truth-finding process that should not be discarded, and ordering reinstatement based on untested, un-disclosed evidence violates fundamental due process.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the requirements of procedural due process for temporary deprivations of property in an administrative context. By applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the Court established a 'middle ground' of procedural protections that falls short of a full evidentiary hearing but requires more than a mere notice and comment. The holding solidifies the principle that the 'opportunity to be heard' must be meaningful, which includes being informed of the substance of the evidence one must rebut. This case serves as a key precedent for determining the constitutional adequacy of pre-deprivation procedures in whistleblower, employment, and other administrative enforcement actions where temporary remedies are imposed before a final adjudication.
