## Facts

- Richard J. Homar was a tenured police officer employed by East Stroudsburg University (a Pennsylvania state institution).
- On August 26, 1992, Homar was arrested by state police and charged with a felony drug offense.
- University officials suspended Homar without pay effective immediately, pending an internal investigation.
- Criminal charges were dismissed on September 1, 1992, but the unpaid suspension continued while the university investigation proceeded.
- On September 18, 1992, the university met with Homar, permitted him to respond, and allowed him to review some evidence.
- On September 23, 1992, the university demoted Homar from police officer to groundskeeper, returned him to work, and provided back pay for the suspension period.
- On September 24, 1992, the university president met with Homar, reviewed additional evidence, heard Homar’s response, and affirmed the demotion.
- Homar sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that suspending him without pay without prior notice and a chance to be heard violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before a state suspends a tenured public employee without pay after a felony arrest.
2. Whether the timing and content of the post-suspension opportunity to respond satisfied due process under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test.
3. Whether Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill compels a pre-suspension hearing for unpaid suspensions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that, in these circumstances, the State did not violate due process by failing to provide notice and a hearing before suspending a tenured employee without pay.
- The Court rejected the view that Loudermill established a categorical pre-suspension hearing requirement for unpaid suspensions.
- The Court held that a felony arrest can justify immediate unpaid suspension from a position of public trust, provided a sufficiently prompt post-suspension opportunity to be heard is afforded.

## Legal Principles

- Procedural due process is context-dependent; the required procedures vary with the situation.
- The Mathews v. Eldridge test governs what process is due, weighing (1) the private interest affected, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation and value of added safeguards, and (3) the government’s interests and burdens.
- A temporary deprivation of pay, especially when reversible through back pay and when benefits may continue, can warrant less pre-deprivation process than termination.
- When an unpaid suspension rests on a felony arrest, an independent determination of probable cause materially reduces the risk of erroneous deprivation.
- The government has a strong interest in immediate action when felony charges are filed against employees in positions of public trust (including police officers).
- Omission of a pre-suspension hearing is constitutionally permissible only if the employee receives a sufficiently prompt post-suspension opportunity to respond.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a tenured public employee may be suspended without pay immediately after a felony arrest without prior notice or a hearing, so long as the employer provides a sufficiently prompt post-suspension opportunity to be heard, as determined through Mathews balancing rather than a categorical extension of Loudermill.


Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997)