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

Arnett v. Kennedy

May the federal government dismiss a nonprobationary employee without a trial-type preremoval hearing? Must the federal government provide sufficiently precise guidelines as to what kind of speech might be made the basis for a removal action?

In a plurality opinion written by Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court held that the procedures established for the purpose of determining whether there is "cause" for Kennedy's dismissal satisfied the requirements of procedural due process. The court also held that standard of employment protection imposed by was not impermissibly vague or overbroad in its regulation of the speech of federal employees. The statute in question was not unconstitutional on its face.

Bishop v. Wood

No details yet.

Board of Regents v. Roth

Does the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that a state university provide a one-year contract employee a hearing and reasons when he is not retained after the termination of his contract?

In an opinion by Justice Potter Stewart, the court held 5-3 that Roth had no protected interest in continued employment, as he had completed his contracted term, and therefore was no Fourteenth Amendment protection.

Christian v. New York Department Of Labor

No details yet.

Cleveland Board Of Education v. Loudermill

No details yet.

Codd v. Velger

No details yet.

Cornelius v. Nutt

No details yet.

Gilbert, President, East Stroudsburg University v. Homar

Does a state institution violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by suspending a tenured employee without pay before holding a hearing in which the employee can voice objections?

No. The Court ruled unanimously that a pre-suspension hearing is not necessary to protect the rights of a tenured employee who is suspended without pay. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia balanced three factors relevant to constitutional due process: 1) the weight of the private interest of the accused; 2) the chance of wrongfully depriving the private interest; and 3) the weight of the government's interest. The Court held that "[s]o long as the suspended employee receives a sufficiently prompt post suspension hearing, the lost income is relatively insubstantial."

LaChance v. Erickson

Does either the Due Process Clause or the Civil Service Reform Act preclude a federal agency from sanctioning an employee for making false statements to the agency regarding alleged employment-related misconduct on the part of the employee?

No. In an unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that neither the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause nor the Civil Service Reform Act precludes a federal agency from sanctioning an employee for making false statements to the agency regarding his alleged employment-related misconduct. "The core of due process is the right to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard," wrote Chief Justice Rehnquist. "But we reject, on the basis of both precedent and principle," continued Chief Justice Rehnquist, "the view expressed by the Court of Appeals in this case that a 'meaningful opportunity to be heard' includes a right to make false statements with respect to the charged conduct."

Ncaa v. Tarkanian

No details yet.

Perry v. Sindermann

No details yet.

Williams v. Zuckert

No details yet.