Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawProcedural Due ProcessFifth Amendmentdue processtemporary reinstatementwhistleblower protectionSurface Transportation Assistance Actpredeprivation hearing

Facts

Roadway discharged driver Jerry Hufstetler, asserting he had disabled truck lights to obtain extra pay while awaiting repairs. Hufstetler claimed the discharge was retaliatory and filed a complaint with the Department of Labor under § 405 after an arbitration ruling had upheld the discharge. OSHA investigated, interviewed Hufstetler and other employees, allowed Roadway to meet with the investigator and submit a written explanation, but did not disclose the names of supporting witnesses or the substance of their statements. The Secretary then issued a preliminary order requiring immediate reinstatement with backpay based on reasonable cause to believe Roadway had violated § 405.

Issue

Does § 405 violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by permitting the Secretary of Labor to order temporary reinstatement of a discharged employee without first providing the employer an evidentiary hearing with confrontation and cross-examination? Separately, does due process require the employer to receive the substance of the evidence supporting the employee's complaint before the preliminary reinstatement order takes effect?

Rule

When the government temporarily deprives an employer of its protected property interest in discharging an employee for cause under § 405, due process does not require a full evidentiary hearing before preliminary reinstatement. But minimum due process does require notice of the employee's allegations, notice of the substance of the relevant supporting evidence, an opportunity to submit a written response, and an opportunity to meet with the investigator and present rebuttal witness statements; confrontation and cross-examination may be deferred to the postreinstatement hearing so long as there is a reliable initial check against mistake and complete, expeditious review is available.

🔒

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.

A bus company in Columbus, Ohio fires driver Elena Cruz after she reports brake defects to state inspectors. A federal labor investigator notifies the company of Cruz's retaliation allegations, provides a summary of two mechanics' statements supporting her claim, invites a written submission, and meets with company managers and their witnesses before issuing a temporary reinstatement order.

If the company argues that due process was violated because it had no chance to cross-examine the mechanics before temporary reinstatement, what is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority held that, in this context, due process does not require a full evidentiary hearing with confrontation and cross-examination before temporary reinstatement. What is required is a reliable initial check against mistake: notice of the allegations, notice of the substance of the relevant supporting evidence, an opportunity to submit a written response, and an opportunity to meet with the investigator and present rebuttal witness statements. Those procedures were provided here.