This paper examines Gilbert v. Homar, 117 S.Ct. 1807 (1997), in which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Third Circuit ruling and addressed whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments extends to disciplinary actions short of termination against tenured public employees. The paper outlines the facts surrounding university police officer Richard Homar's suspension without pay following a felony arrest, analyzes the contentions of both parties, and applies the three-factor balancing test established in Mathews v. Eldridge. The Court's reasoning, unanimous decision, and resulting rule of law are discussed, with attention to how promptness of post-suspension hearings satisfies constitutional due process requirements.
Gilbert v. Homar, 117 S.Ct. 1807 (1997), involved a 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 he was immediately suspended without pay following a felony arrest. The university sought to overturn the Third Circuit's reversal of the district court's original summary judgment in the university's favor, with the Supreme Court granting certiorari.
Richard L. Homar was employed as a campus police officer by the university until an incident occurred in which he was arrested on drug charges relating to a raid executed at a family friend's house. Despite simply being present at a friend's house at the 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.
University President Gilbert immediately ordered Homar to be suspended without pay following the arrest, and this punitive action remained in place even after the charges against Homar were dropped. Homar's suspension without pay continued pending the university's internal investigation, and he was permitted to meet with university officials to plead his case. During this meeting, however, university 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 back pay beginning from the date of his suspension, with his compensation reduced to the rate of pay earned by university groundskeepers. Homar then contacted his union to request a formal meeting with Gilbert, but the university president ruled that the demotion would remain intact because, in his estimation, Homar had been provided ample opportunity to respond to the charges.
Homar argued that: The protections afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments necessitated that the university provide an avenue for Homar to state his case before any suspension without pay could be imposed. Homar contended that he held a significant private interest in the continued receipt of his salary as a tenured public employee who could not be fired without cause. He further contended that because the university 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 was his contention that a pre-suspension hearing should have been granted, given 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 the university argued that: The high degree of public visibility inherent to certain positions — police officer being one — forms the basis for a significant interest in suspending employees immediately upon their being arrested and charged with criminal and/or felony acts. Gilbert and the university also contended that the pre-suspension and post-suspension procedures were conducted promptly and in full accordance with due process mandates.
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 concerned the application of due process protection based on the three factors that determine what level of process is constitutionally due the accused, in accordance with the precedent established by Mathews 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 the 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."
"9-0 reversal; prompt hearing satisfies due process"
"Post-suspension hearing standard for tenured employees"
You’re 68% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.