## Facts

- Wayne Kennedy, a nonprobationary employee in the competitive federal civil service at the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), was removed for allegedly making recklessly false and defamatory statements accusing other OEO employees of corruption and bringing the agency into disrepute.
- Under the Lloyd–La Follette Act, a covered employee could be removed “only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service,” after written notice of charges, an opportunity for a written response with affidavits, and a written decision; the statute stated that a trial or hearing was not required.
- OEO and Civil Service Commission regulations provided advance notice and a post-termination, trial-type evidentiary hearing on appeal, with reinstatement and backpay if the employee prevailed.
- Kennedy received notice of the proposed dismissal and was advised of the evidence, charges, and his opportunity to respond, but he did not substantively contest the charges administratively.
- Kennedy sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that the statutory and regulatory scheme violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fifth Amendment requires a trial-type pretermination hearing before removing a nonprobationary federal civil service employee who may be dismissed only for cause.
2. Whether the statutory standard authorizing removal “for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service,” including as applied to allegedly defamatory speech, is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad under the First Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the three-judge district court’s judgment ordering reinstatement and backpay and remanded.
- In a fragmented decision with no single majority opinion, the Court held that the post-termination procedures, including a trial-type evidentiary hearing on appeal with reinstatement and backpay, were constitutionally sufficient; a trial-type hearing before removal was not required.
- The Court rejected the facial and as-applied challenges to the “efficiency of the service” standard, holding it was not impermissibly vague or overbroad as applied to the charged misconduct and did not violate the First Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- A federal civil service employee protected by a “for cause” standard has a protected interest in continued employment, but due process is assessed by evaluating the overall procedural scheme, including available post-deprivation remedies.
- Due process does not necessarily require a trial-type evidentiary hearing before termination where the employee receives advance notice of charges, an opportunity to respond, and a prompt post-termination evidentiary hearing with meaningful relief (including reinstatement and backpay) if the termination was erroneous.
- The removal standard “for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service” can provide sufficient guidance for employee conduct in the public employment context and is not facially invalid for vagueness or overbreadth.
- Public employers may discipline employee speech that is reasonably related to maintaining an efficient and trustworthy service, including speech alleged to be recklessly false and defamatory, without rendering the governing statutory standard unconstitutional.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the federal statutory and regulatory framework allowing removal for cause with notice, an opportunity to respond, and a post-termination evidentiary hearing satisfied due process, and it upheld the “efficiency of the service” removal standard against vagueness and overbreadth challenges.


Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974)