Montrell Greene v. Greenwood Public School Dist, e
890 F.3d 240 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a public employee with a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before being terminated. The availability of post-termination remedies does not cure the failure to provide this pre-deprivation process.
Facts:
- In April 2013, Greenwood Public School District (GPSD) hired Montrell Greene as superintendent of schools under a contract.
- GPSD later extended Greene's employment contract to run through June 2018.
- On January 4, 2016, three members of the GPSD Board of Trustees called a special meeting and voted to terminate Greene's employment.
- Greene was present at the meeting but was not informed of the basis for his termination.
- Greene was not given an opportunity to address the Board or present a defense before the vote to terminate him occurred.
- The following day, Greene received a letter from GPSD's attorney stating he had been terminated for cause.
Procedural Posture:
- Montrell Greene filed suit in U.S. District Court against GPSD and three board members, alleging a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that Greene had not been denied adequate due process because he failed to utilize the available state judicial review procedure.
- Greene (Appellant) appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 availability of a post-termination judicial review process under state law satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's due process requirement for a pre-termination hearing for a public employee with a property interest in their employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Graves, J.
No. The availability of a post-termination remedy does not satisfy the constitutional requirement for a pre-deprivation hearing. The Supreme Court's decision in Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill establishes that an essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of property must be preceded by notice and an opportunity for a hearing. For a public employee with a property interest in their job, this requires, at a minimum, notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond before the termination takes effect. Greene's failure to pursue a post-deprivation judicial review under a Mississippi state statute is irrelevant to his entitlement to a pre-deprivation hearing. Furthermore, even if a state law prohibited such a hearing, it would be superseded by the superior requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the precedent set in Loudermill, emphasizing that pre-termination process is a non-negotiable element of due process for public employees. It clarifies that state-provided post-termination remedies, such as judicial review, are constitutionally insufficient to substitute for a pre-deprivation hearing. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder to public employers that they cannot circumvent an employee's right to notice and an opportunity to respond before termination, even if state law appears to limit or omit such procedures. This holding solidifies the hierarchy of federal constitutional rights over conflicting state statutes in the context of public employment.
