Due Process Law and 5th & 14th Amendment Issues in Gilbert v. Homar, 117 S.Ct. 1807 (1997) Title and Citation: Gilbert v. Homar, 117 S.Ct. 1807 (1997)

Type of Action: Review by the U.S. Supreme Court of a ruling made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which held that a university police officer's right to due process was violated by his employer when the former was immediately suspended without following a felony arrest. East Stroudsburg University (ESU) sought to overturn the Third Circuit's reversal of the district court's original summary judgment for the university, with the Supreme Court granting certiorari.

Facts of the Case: Richard L. Homar was employed as a campus police officer by ESU, until an incident occurred in which Homar was arrested on drug charges relating to a raid executed at a family friend's house. Despite simply being at a friend's house at the proverbial "wrong time," Homar was charged with possession of marijuana, possession with intent to deliver, and the felony charge of criminal conspiracy to violate the controlled substance law.

ESU President Gilbert immediately ordered Homar to be suspended without pay following the arrest, and this punitive action was kept in place even when the charges against Homar were dropped. Homar's suspension without pay continued pending ESU's internal investigation, and he was permitted to meet with university officials to plead his case. During this meeting ESU...

As part of his demotion Homar was told he would receive backpay beginning from the date of his suspension, with his compensation falling to the rate of pay earned by university groundskeepers. Homar then contacted his union to request a formal meeting with Gilbert, but the ESU President ruled that the demotion would remain intact because, in his estimation, Homar had been provided ample opportunity to respond to the charges.
d. Contentions of the Parties:

• Homar argues that: The protections afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments necessitate that ESU provide an avenue for Homar to state his case, before any suspension without pay can be imposed. Homar contends that he holds a significant private interest in the continued receipt of his salary as a tenured public employee who cannot be fired without cause. Homar further contends that because ESU retained discretion in terms of the penalties assessed following an employee's arrest, he should have been afforded a platform to persuade his employer of his innocence before punitive action was taken. A fundamental aspect of Homar's case concerns his contention that a pre-suspension hearing should have been granted, due to the fact that "the suspension was open-ended and he 'theoretically may not have had the opportunity to be heard for weeks, months, or even years after his initial suspension without pay.'"

• Gilbert and ESU argue that: The high degree of public visibility inherent to certain positions, police officer being one, forms the basis for significant interest in suspending employees…