Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532

Supreme Court of the United States

1985

Chapter

6

Title

Implied Fundamental Rights

Page

945

Topic

Procedural Due Process

Quick Notes

In 1979 the Cleveland Board of Education hired James Loudermill as a security guard.  On his job application, Loudermill stated that he had never been convicted of a felony.   When it was discovered that Loudermill had, in fact, been convicted of grand larceny in 1968, The Boards Business Manager informed Loudermill that he had been dismissed because of his dishonesty in filling out the employment application.  Loudermill was not given the opportunity to respond to the charge of dishonesty or to challenge dismissal.

Rule - Holding

o         The right to due process is conferred not by legislative grace, but by constitutional guarantee, and while the legislature may elect not to confer a property interest in public employment, it may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of such an interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural safeguards.

o         The due process clause provides that certain substantive rights, including the right to property, cannot be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures

Application

o         Legislature cannot attempt to define procedures to take a way an entitlement to a right they create.

o         The Constitution that determines the procedures for deprivation.

o         Property cannot be defined by the procedures provided for it deprivation.

Book Name

Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet.  ISBN:  978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue

o         Whether a public employee who can be discharged only for cause is entitled to a hearing before that discharge occurs?  Yes.

o         What pretermination process must be accorded a public employee who can be discharged only for cause?  Notice and hearing.

Procedure

Trial

o         District court dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Appellant

o         United States Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit, which found that respondents had been deprived of due process, and concluded that a compelling private interest in retaining employment, coupled with value of presenting evidence prior to dismissal, outweighed the added administrative burden of a pre-termination hearing.

Supreme

o         Affirmed

Facts/Cases

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules/Laws

Pl -   Cleveland Board of Education

Df -   Loudermill

Description

o         In 1979 the Cleveland Board of Education hired James Loudermill as a security guard.

o         On his job application, Loudermill stated that he had never been convicted of a felony.

o         When it was discovered that Loudermill had, in fact, been convicted of grand larceny in 1968, The Boards Business Manager informed Loudermill that he had been dismissed because of his dishonesty in filling out the employment application.

o         Loudermill was not given the opportunity to respond to the charge of dishonesty or to challenge dismissal.

Justice White

Under Ohio Law

o         Loudermill was classified as a civil servant

o         Could only be terminated for cause.

o         Loudermill was entitled to administrative review if discharged.

Loudermills federal constitutional claims

o         Depends on his having had a property right in continued employment.

o         If he did, the State could not deprive him of this property without due process.

Property interests are not created by the Constitution

o         Created and their dimensions defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.

Court - Statute create a property interest

o         The statute plainly creates such an interest, as Loudermill and other civil service employees are entitled to retain their positions during "good behavior and efficient service," and cannot be dismissed "except for misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office."

Court - Possessed property rights in continued employment

o         The statute plainly supports the conclusion that respondents possessed property rights in continued employment.

Board argues - Property right is conditioned

o          that the property right is defined by, and conditioned on, the legislature's choice of procedures for its deprivation.

o         The Board stresses that in addition to specifying the grounds for termination, the statute sets out procedures by which termination may take place.

o         The procedures were adhered to in these cases.

o         According to the Board, to require additional procedures would, in effect, expand the scope of the property interest itself.

o         This argument, which was accepted by the district court, has its  genesis in the plurality opinion in Arnett v. Kennedy.

Arnett v. Kennedy

o          Holding that where the legislation conferring the substantive right also sets out the procedural mechanism for enforcing that right, the two cannot be separated.

o         The bitter with the sweet approach misconceives the constitution guarantee.

Life, Liberty, and Property cannot be deprived

o         The Due Process Clause provides that life, liberty, and property cannot be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures.

o         The categories of substance and procedure are distinct.

Procedures cannot deprive property

o         Property cannot be defined by the procedures provided for its deprivation any more than can life or liberty.

Rule

o         The right to due process is conferred not by legislative grace, but by constitutional guarantee, and while the legislature may elect not to confer a property interest in public employment, it may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of such an interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural safeguards.

Affirmed

DISSENT - Justice Rehnquist

Dismissed without a hearing

o         In Arnett six members of this Court agreed that a public employee could be dismissed for misconduct without a full hearing prior to termination.

Entitled to nothing more than what Congress gave him

o         A plurality of Justices agreed that the employee was entitled to exactly what Congress gave him, and no more.

o         Here, as in Arnett, the employee's statutorily defined right is not a guarantee against removal without cause in the abstract, but such a guarantee as enforced by the procedures which Ohio's legislature has designated for the determination of cause.

o         We ought to recognize the totality of the State's definition of the property right in question, and not merely seize upon one of several paragraphs in a unitary statute.

Rules

Rule

o         The right to due process is conferred not by legislative grace, but by constitutional guarantee, and while the legislature may elect not to confer a property interest in public employment, it may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of such an interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural safeguards.

o         The due process clause provides that certain substantive rights, including the right to property, cannot be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures

Class Notes