The Oyez Project: Due Process Issues - Hearing, Government Employees Arguments

Arnett v. Kennedy - Oral Argument

Wed, 07 Nov 1973 12:00:00 -0500

Wayne Kennedy was a nonprobationary employee of the federal Office of Economic Opportunity. He was dismissed from his position after allegedly making recklessly false and defamatory statements about other OEO employees. Though he had the right under federal regulations to reply to the charges, he chose instead to sue the agency for interfering with his freedom of expression and denying him due process. A three-judge District Court agreed with Kennedy on the due process claim.

Bishop v. Wood - Oral Argument

Mon, 01 Mar 1976 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Board of Regents v. Roth - Oral Argument

Tue, 18 Jan 1972 12:00:00 -0500

David Roth was hired under a one-year contract to teach political science at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh. He was informed that he would not be rehired at the end of his contract. No reasons were given for this decision. Roth brought suit against the university claiming that (1) the real reason for his non-retention was his criticism of the university administration violating his right to free speech protected by the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) the university's failure to advise him of the reason for its decision violated his right to procedural due process. Roth won on the second claim. It was upheld on appeal.

Cleveland Board Of Education v. Loudermill - Oral Argument

Mon, 03 Dec 1984 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Cornelius v. Nutt - Oral Argument

Mon, 07 Jan 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Gilbert, President, East Stroudsburg University v. Homar - Oral Argument

Mon, 24 Mar 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Richard J. Homar, a tenured policeman for East Stroudsburg University (ESU), was arrested for possession of illegal drugs. ESU, a Pennsylvania state institution, immediately suspended him without pay until his culpability could be determined. State police dropped the charges but the suspension continued. At a later hearing ESU demoted Homar to groundskeeper, relying on his confession to police. Homar argued that ESU president James Gilbert had violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to provide him with notice and an opportunity to be heard before the suspension. A district court granted summary judgment to ESU. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the decision, holding that it was illegal to withhold pay without first providing a hearing.

LaChance v. Erickson - Oral Argument

Tue, 02 Dec 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Federal employees subject to adverse actions by their respective agencies, each made false statements to agency investigators with respect to the misconduct with which they were charged. In each case, the agency additionally charged the false statement as a ground for adverse action. Separately, each employee appealed the actions taken against him or her to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). The Board upheld the portion of each penalty that was based on the underlying charge. The Board overturned each false statement charge. The Board held that an employee's false statements could not be used for purposes of impeaching the employee's credibility, nor could they be considered in setting the appropriate punishment for the employee's underlying misconduct. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board and held that no penalty could be based on a false denial of the underlying claim.

Ncaa v. Tarkanian - Oral Argument

Wed, 05 Oct 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.