« Employment Law Memo | Main | Fire that one and get "somebody hot" »
Cert petition on post-termination hearing
August 10, 2005 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
Yesterday Tom Goldstein of Goldstein & Howe (and SCOTUSblog contributor) filed a petition for writ of certiorari [here]. The petition states the following QUESTION PRESENTED:
In Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U532 (1985), this Court held that tenured state employees have a right under the Due Process Clause to notice and a hearing before they are terminated. The courts of appeals are divided over the following question:Does the failure to provide the pre-termination hearing required under Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), no longer violate the Due Process Clause if denial of the hearing also contravenes state law and state law provides a post-termination remedy?
Employment Law Memo had this to say about the Court of Appeals decision:
Public employee's due process claim was barred by "Parratt-Hudson" doctrine.Hadfield v. McDonough (1st Cir 05/11/2005)
http://laws.findlaw.com/1st/042020.htmlHadfield sued the public employer, alleging violation of his 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment (deprivation of property interest without due process) rights. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The 1st Circuit affirmed. The court concluded political affiliation was an appropriate requirement for Hadfield's job. The court also concluded that Hadfield's due process claim was barred by the "Parratt-Hudson" doctrine.
The Parratt-Hudson doctrine arises from Parratt v. Taylor, 451 US 527 (1981), and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 US 517 (1984). It shields a public entity from a federal due process claim where the denial of process was caused by the random and unauthorized conduct of government officials and where the state has provided adequate post-deprivation remedies to correct the random and unauthorized acts. Applying the Parratt-Hudson doctrine, the court determined that Massachusetts provided a sufficient post-deprivation remedy and that Hadfield chose not to avail himself of that remedy.
EEOC | NLRB | Supreme Court | Employment Law Blog | Arbitration Blog | Employment Law 101
