Codd v. Velger case brief summary
429 U.S. 624 (1977)
CASE FACTS
The dismissed employee filed an original complaint that alleged that he had been wrongfully dismissed from his position as patrolman with the police department without a hearing or a statement of the reasons. After the district court ruled that he had no right to a hearing because he was a probationary employee, he amended his complaint to allege that he was entitled to a hearing due to the stigmatizing effect of certain material placed in his personnel file. He alleged that the derogatory material had brought about his subsequent dismissal from another police department and prevented him from obtaining other employment. The appellate court reversed the district court finding that no stigma had been shown.
DISCUSSION:
On certiorari, the court reversed the appellate court. It held that the employee failed to allege that the report of an apparent attempted suicide that was included in his personnel file was false. Since there was no factual dispute, a hearing mandated by due process would have served no purpose.
OUTCOME
The court reversed the judgment of the appellate court with instructions to reinstate the district court judgment that the dismissed employee had not proved that he had been stigmatized by the police department file relating to his employment.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
429 U.S. 624 (1977)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner police commissioner
challenged the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which held that the district court's finding that
respondent, a dismissed employee, had not been stigmatized by his
dismissal was clearly erroneous.CASE FACTS
The dismissed employee filed an original complaint that alleged that he had been wrongfully dismissed from his position as patrolman with the police department without a hearing or a statement of the reasons. After the district court ruled that he had no right to a hearing because he was a probationary employee, he amended his complaint to allege that he was entitled to a hearing due to the stigmatizing effect of certain material placed in his personnel file. He alleged that the derogatory material had brought about his subsequent dismissal from another police department and prevented him from obtaining other employment. The appellate court reversed the district court finding that no stigma had been shown.
DISCUSSION:
On certiorari, the court reversed the appellate court. It held that the employee failed to allege that the report of an apparent attempted suicide that was included in his personnel file was false. Since there was no factual dispute, a hearing mandated by due process would have served no purpose.
OUTCOME
The court reversed the judgment of the appellate court with instructions to reinstate the district court judgment that the dismissed employee had not proved that he had been stigmatized by the police department file relating to his employment.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment