Gilbert v. Homar
520 U.S. 924 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause does not require a state to provide a tenured public employee with a pre-suspension hearing before suspending them without pay, so long as the suspension is based on an arrest and felony charges and a prompt post-suspension hearing is provided.
Facts:
- Richard J. Homar was a tenured police officer at East Stroudsburg University (ESU), a state institution.
- On August 26, 1992, the Pennsylvania State Police arrested Homar at a friend's home during a drug raid.
- Following the arrest, police filed a criminal complaint charging Homar with felony drug offenses, including possession with intent to deliver.
- State police notified Homar's supervisor of the arrest and charges.
- ESU officials immediately suspended Homar without pay, pending an investigation.
- On September 1, 1992, the criminal charges against Homar were dismissed.
- Despite the dismissal, Homar's suspension remained in effect while ESU conducted its own investigation.
- On September 23, ESU demoted Homar to a groundskeeper position, citing admissions he allegedly made to the police on the day of his arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard J. Homar filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against ESU officials in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging a due process violation.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the ESU officials.
- Homar, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that the university's failure to provide a pre-suspension hearing violated Homar's due process rights.
- The ESU officials, as petitioners, petitioned for 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 notice and a hearing before a state suspends a tenured public employee without pay after that employee has been arrested and formally charged with a felony?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. The Due Process Clause does not require a hearing prior to suspending a tenured public employee who has been arrested and charged with a felony. To determine what process is due, the Court applies the three-factor balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge. First, the employee's private interest in uninterrupted pay is significant but is tempered by the temporary nature of a suspension compared to a termination. Second, the government has a significant interest in immediately suspending employees in positions of public trust, such as police officers, to maintain public confidence. Third, the risk of an erroneous deprivation is low because the arrest and filing of formal charges by an independent body (the police) provide adequate, objective assurance that the suspension is not baseless, thereby diminishing the value of a pre-suspension hearing. This independent determination of probable cause serves the purpose of an initial check against a mistaken decision, making a pre-suspension hearing unnecessary. The constitutional adequacy then turns on the promptness of a post-suspension hearing, which the Court remanded for further consideration.
Analysis:
This case refines the procedural due process rights of public employees established in Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill. It clarifies that the requirement for a pre-deprivation hearing is not absolute and depends on a balancing of interests. The decision establishes that for suspensions, as distinct from terminations, the state's interest can be more compelling and the procedural requirements less stringent, particularly when there is an independent, objective basis for the adverse action, like a felony arrest. This creates a significant precedent allowing public employers to act swiftly in suspending employees in high-trust positions accused of serious crimes, shifting the due process focus from a pre-suspension hearing to the promptness and adequacy of a post-suspension hearing.
Unlock the full brief for Gilbert v. Homar