Cleveland Board of
Education v. Loudermill case brief
470 U.S. 532, 105 S. Ct. 1487, 84 L. Ed. 2d 494, 1 IER Cases 424, 118 LRRM 3041 (1985)
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
470 U.S. 532, 105 S. Ct. 1487, 84 L. Ed. 2d 494, 1 IER Cases 424, 118 LRRM 3041 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner
sought certiorari from decision of 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.
FACTS: Respondents, classified civil servants pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 124.11 (1984), were dismissed from employment without hearing. Respondents claimed that § 124.34 was unconstitutional on its face because it did not provide an employee an opportunity to respond to the charges against him prior to removal, and, as a result discharged employees were deprived of liberty and property without due process. On certiorari, the Court stated that the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution provided that certain substantive rights, such as life, liberty, and property, could not be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures. The Court held that all the process that was due was provided by a pretermination opportunity to respond, coupled with post-termination administrative proceedings as provided by Ohio statute. As respondents alleged that they had no chance to respond, the district court erred in dismissing for failure to state a claim.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was affirmed and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion, on grounds that respondents, as classified civil servants, had to be afforded due process in form of pre-termination opportunity to respond, coupled with post-termination administrative proceedings as provided by Ohio statute.
FACTS: Respondents, classified civil servants pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 124.11 (1984), were dismissed from employment without hearing. Respondents claimed that § 124.34 was unconstitutional on its face because it did not provide an employee an opportunity to respond to the charges against him prior to removal, and, as a result discharged employees were deprived of liberty and property without due process. On certiorari, the Court stated that the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution provided that certain substantive rights, such as life, liberty, and property, could not be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures. The Court held that all the process that was due was provided by a pretermination opportunity to respond, coupled with post-termination administrative proceedings as provided by Ohio statute. As respondents alleged that they had no chance to respond, the district court erred in dismissing for failure to state a claim.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was affirmed and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion, on grounds that respondents, as classified civil servants, had to be afforded due process in form of pre-termination opportunity to respond, coupled with post-termination administrative proceedings as provided by Ohio statute.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment