Facts
- James Loudermill was hired as a security guard by the Cleveland Board of Education and was classified under Ohio civil service law, permitting discharge only for cause with post-termination administrative review.
- Loudermill was fired for alleged dishonesty on his job application after the Board discovered a prior grand larceny conviction; he received no pretermination notice or chance to respond.
- Loudermill appealed to the Cleveland Civil Service Commission, which upheld his dismissal after hearings completed about nine months after his appeal was filed; he claimed he believed the conviction was a misdemeanor.
- Richard Donnelly, a classified civil servant bus mechanic for the Parma Board of Education, was dismissed after failing an eye examination.
- The Civil Service Commission ordered Donnelly reinstated but denied back pay.
- Both employees filed federal actions challenging the Ohio scheme as denying due process by omitting pretermination procedures and, as applied, by providing insufficiently prompt post-termination hearings.
- The district courts dismissed, reasoning that the statute creating the employment entitlement also defined the process due.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, holding due process required an opportunity to respond before termination.
Issues
- Whether a public employee who may be discharged only for cause has a Fourteenth Amendment property interest requiring pretermination process.
- Whether a State may terminate such an employee without pretermination notice and an opportunity to respond, relying solely on post-termination administrative review.
- What minimum pretermination procedures are constitutionally required when post-termination hearings are available.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the requirement of pretermination process and rejected the view that the State can define constitutional process by the same statute that creates the employment entitlement.
- The Court held that a for-cause public employee must receive “some kind of a hearing” before termination.
- The Court ruled that due process is satisfied by a pretermination opportunity to respond, combined with post-termination administrative procedures.
- The Court stated the pretermination hearing need not be elaborate and functions as an initial check against mistaken decisions.
- The Court recognized that excessive delay in post-termination proceedings could violate due process, but concluded the pleaded delay in Loudermill’s case did not establish a constitutional violation at that stage.
Legal Principles
- State law may create a protected property interest in continued public employment when discharge is permitted only for cause.
- Once a property interest exists, the Constitution—rather than the statute creating the interest—determines the minimum process required.
- Before termination, due process requires: (1) oral or written notice of the charges, (2) an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and (3) an opportunity for the employee to present his side of the story.
- The pretermination proceeding may be informal and limited, serving only to assess whether reasonable grounds support the proposed action; fuller evidentiary procedures may occur post-termination.
- Post-termination review must occur within a constitutionally acceptable time; at some point, delay can amount to a due process violation.
Conclusion
The Court held that public employees who may be discharged only for cause have a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment and must receive minimal pretermination process—notice, an explanation of the evidence, and an opportunity to respond—followed by post-termination administrative review.