Gilbert v. Homar

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawDue ProcessPublic EmploymentDue Process ClauseFourteenth Amendmentpublic employee suspensionsuspension without paypredeprivation hearing

Facts

Richard Homar was a police officer at East Stroudsburg University. After he was arrested in a drug raid and formally charged with felony and related drug offenses, university officials immediately suspended him without pay, effective the day of his arrest, without prior notice or hearing. The criminal charges were later dismissed, but the suspension remained in place while the university investigated. Homar did not receive an opportunity to tell his side until September 18, and he was later demoted, though he eventually received backpay for the suspension period at the police-officer rate.

Issue

Does the Due Process Clause require a State to provide notice and a hearing before suspending a tenured public employee without pay when the employee has been arrested and formally charged with a felony? More specifically, was a categorical rule requiring a pre-suspension hearing in all unpaid suspensions consistent with due process?

Rule

Due process is flexible and does not always require a hearing before an initial deprivation of property. What process is due is determined by balancing the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation and the value of additional safeguards, and the government's interest; where an employee is arrested and formally charged with a felony, those objective actions by an independent body can provide sufficient assurance to justify immediate suspension without pay, so long as a sufficiently prompt post-suspension hearing is provided.

🔒

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.

Nina Alvarez is a tenured transit police officer for the City of Phoenix. After county prosecutors file felony theft charges based on an arrest made that morning, the department immediately suspends her without pay and schedules an internal hearing for five days later.

If Alvarez argues that due process required notice and an opportunity to respond before the unpaid suspension took effect, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority rejected any absolute rule requiring a pre-suspension hearing in every unpaid suspension case. Applying Mathews, the Court held that when a public employee has been arrested and formally charged with a felony, those objective actions by an independent body provide substantial assurance that the suspension is not baseless or unwarranted, permitting immediate suspension without pay so long as there is a sufficiently prompt post-suspension hearing.