Bishop v. Wood

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawDue ProcessPublic EmploymentFourteenth Amendmentdue processproperty interestliberty interestpublic employee

Facts

Bishop was hired as a probationary Marion, North Carolina police officer, became a permanent employee after six months, and was later discharged by the City Manager on the Chief of Police's recommendation without a hearing. A city ordinance stated that a permanent employee may be dismissed for failing to perform up to the standard of his classification or for being negligent, inefficient, or unfit. During discovery, the city stated that Bishop was discharged for failure to follow orders, poor attendance at training, causing low morale, and conduct unsuited to an officer. Bishop submitted evidence denying the truth of those accusations and argued that his status as a permanent employee gave him a constitutional right to a hearing before termination.

Issue

Did Bishop's status under the Marion ordinance create a property interest in continued employment protected by the Fourteenth Amendment? If the stated reasons for his discharge were false, did those reasons deprive him of a protected liberty interest when they were communicated privately and later in litigation?

Rule

A property interest in public employment may be created by ordinance or implied contract, but the existence and dimensions of that entitlement must be determined by reference to state law. A discharged at-will public employee is not deprived of a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest by allegedly false reasons for discharge when those reasons are not publicly disclosed in connection with the termination; private communication to the employee and later statements made during litigation do not establish such a liberty deprivation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Elena Cruz worked for the city sanitation department in Toledo, Ohio. A municipal ordinance states that a "regular employee" may be removed for unsatisfactory work, negligence, or unfitness, but no Ohio court has interpreted the ordinance; a federal district court and the court of appeals both read it as preserving the city's power to discharge at will and merely requiring internal procedures.

If Cruz brings a federal due process claim alleging she was entitled to a pretermination hearing because the ordinance gave her tenure, how should the court rule under the majority's approach?

Explanation. The majority held that whether a public employee has a property interest depends on state law. Where no authoritative state-court interpretation exists, the Supreme Court may accept a tenable interpretation of local law adopted by the lower federal courts. If that interpretation treats the employee as serving at will, there is no protected property interest and no constitutional requirement of a pretermination hearing.