Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill

Supreme Court of the United States
470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a tenured public employee receive oral or written notice of the charges against them, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and a meaningful opportunity to respond before being terminated.

Facts:

In 1979, the Cleveland Board of Education hired James Loudermill as a security guard.
On his application, Loudermill stated he had never been convicted of a felony.
Eleven months later, the Board discovered Loudermill had a 1968 felony conviction for grand larceny.
The Board dismissed Loudermill via letter for dishonesty on his application without affording him an opportunity to respond to the charge or challenge the dismissal beforehand.
Richard Donnelly, a mechanic for the Parma Board of Education, was fired after failing an eye examination.
Donnelly was offered a chance to retake the exam but did not do so, and he was subsequently terminated without a pre-termination hearing.
Both Loudermill and Donnelly were classified as "civil servants" under Ohio law, which meant they could only be terminated for cause.

Procedural Posture:

James Loudermill appealed his dismissal to the Cleveland Civil Service Commission, which, after a hearing, upheld the termination.
Loudermill and Richard Donnelly filed separate suits against their respective Boards of Education in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
The District Court dismissed both complaints for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
The employees (appellants) appealed the dismissals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that the employees had been deprived of due process by the lack of a pre-termination hearing.
The Cleveland and Parma Boards of Education (petitioners) sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.

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 Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require a pre-termination hearing for a tenured public employee who, under state law, can only be discharged for cause?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice White

Yes. The Due Process Clause requires a pre-termination opportunity to be heard for tenured public employees. While state law creates the property interest in employment, the constitutional minimum for procedural due process is a matter of federal law and is not defined or limited by the state statute that creates the right. The Court explicitly rejects the 'bitter with the sweet' approach from Arnett v. Kennedy, holding that property rights cannot be defined by the procedures provided for their deprivation. A pre-termination hearing serves as an essential check against erroneous decisions by balancing the employee's significant private interest in retaining employment against the government's interest in expeditious removal of unsatisfactory employees. This pre-termination process need not be elaborate; it requires only notice of the charges, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity for the employee to present their side of the story.

Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist

No. The Fourteenth Amendment does not support the conclusion that Ohio created a property right that could not be limited by the state's own statutory procedures. The property right in employment was created by the same Ohio statute that specified the procedures for termination; therefore, the substantive right is inextricably intertwined with those procedural limitations. By separating the right from the legislatively defined procedure, the majority ignores the principle from Board of Regents v. Roth that state law defines the dimensions of property interests. The employee must take the 'bitter with the sweet'—the grant of tenure along with its inherent procedural limitations.

Concurring - Justice Marshall

Yes. While agreeing that a pre-termination opportunity to respond is constitutionally required, this opinion argues for more extensive pre-termination procedures than the majority requires. Because the loss of wages can be devastating, an employee should be entitled to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses and present their own witnesses before termination whenever there are substantial factual disputes. The majority's allowance for a minimal hearing accepts an impermissibly high risk that a wrongfully discharged employee will suffer traumatic personal and economic disruptions while awaiting a lengthy post-termination process.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Brennan

Yes. This opinion concurs that the Constitution guarantees a pre-termination hearing but dissents from the majority's conclusion in Part V that the nine-month post-termination delay was constitutionally acceptable. While agreeing with the pre-termination hearing requirement, the opinion stresses that in cases involving factual disputes, due process may require more than what the majority outlined, such as an opportunity to produce contrary evidence. The dissent argues that the record on the administrative delay was insufficiently developed to dismiss the claim, and the case should have been remanded to determine if the nine-month wait was reasonable under the circumstances.

Analysis:

This landmark decision definitively rejects the 'bitter with the sweet' theory that a state can define the procedures for depriving a right it creates. It establishes that while property interests like public employment are creatures of state law, the process due before their deprivation is governed by the federal Constitution. The case sets a constitutional floor for public employee discipline, mandating a minimal pre-termination hearing nationwide. This holding significantly strengthened the procedural rights of government workers and clarified the relationship between state-created substantive rights and federal due process requirements.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"