Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
(470 U.S. 532) (1985)
by
Stephanie Thomas

Facts of the Case

Loudermill was hired as a security guard by the board of education and on his job application he had stated that he had never been convicted of a felony. After discovering that he had been convicted of grand larceny, the board fired him and he was not given the opportunity to respond or challenge the dishonesty charge or his dismissal. Under Ohio law he was considered a “classified civil servant” and could only be fired with reason and an opportunity for administrative review. He appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which nine months later upheld his dismissal. Loudermill brought the case to the federal district court, saying that the Ohio statute was unconstitutional in that it did not provide an opportunity for an employee to respond to charges before their dismissal, and that the post removal hearings were not executed quickly enough. He said that his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process had been violated because he had been denied liberty and property rights.

In a similar case, the board of education fired bus mechanic Donnelly because he had failed an eye exam. On appeal to the Civil Service Commission he was reinstated without back pay. He too filed suit in the federal district court. Both cases were dismissed for failure to state a claim. The cases were consolidated and brought to the court of appeals, which reversed in part and remanded. This court said the defendants had been deprived of due process because of their property interest in retaining employment and the importance of responding to charges before dismissal. However, they found there was no deprivation of liberty concerning the nine-month wait. The case was brought to the Supreme Court.

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of appeals on March 19, 1985 through Justice White’s opinion of the court, which said that the workers’ Fourteenth Amendment right to due process had been violated based on their property interest in continued employment. The court said that some kind of hearing prior to dismissal is required as a check to ensure that there are at least reasonable grounds for dismissal. The employee needs notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond. However, an elaborate hearing is not necessary, and the workers’ liberty interests had not been violated in the elapsed time during the appeals process.

Basis for the Decision

The Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause to show that a property interest cannot be denied. It cited Board of Regents v. Roth (408 U.S. 564, 577, (1972)) to show that property interests are often “not created by the Constitution” but rather by state regulations or statutes, and therefore said that employees have a property interest in continued employment and are required to receive notice of the charges against them and an opportunity to respond to them prior to their dismissal. A property right requires that a pre-termination hearing be held.