Gilbert v. Homar, 117 S.Ct. 1807 (1997) Case Brief

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 officials neglected to inform Homar that they had obtained access to the police reports relating to his arrest, including an alleged confession made by Homar on the day of his arrest. Following this meeting Homar was notified via mail that he had been demoted to the position of groundskeeper. 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 immediately upon them being arrested and charged with criminal and/or felony acts.

Gilbert and ESU also contend that the pre-suspension and post-suspension procedures were conducted promptly and in accordance with due process mandates. e. Issue(s): The Court was tasked with deciding whether the protections granted by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments extend to cover punitive actions falling short of termination levied against tenured public employees.

The crux of the Court's deliberations in this case concerned the application of due process protection based on the three factors which determine what level of process is constitutionally due the accused in accordance with the precedent established by Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).

The standard for due process application set in that case holds that "identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail." f.

Decision: In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' ruling and remanded the case for further consideration as to the adequacy of the post-termination hearing provided by ESU to Homar. g. Reasoning: In making this decision, the Court found that because Homar had only been suspended without pay -- rather than terminated entirely -- the loss of income he suffered was not substantial enough to override the university's significant interest in levying an immediate suspension.

According to the Court, the government (in this case, a state university) has no obligation to provide an employee charged with felony crimes paid leave, and so long.