Agenda - 09-16-2008 - 6f - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 is used to determine whether ar not the gre-disciplinary hearing of an employee is adequate under the Uue Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment. This test involves the balancing of "the competition between {a} the employee's interest in his employment, {b} the government's interest in an expeditious and effective tool to discipline unsatisfactory employees, (c) the government's interest in the avoidance of undue administrative or fiscal burdens, and (d} the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the employee's interest „i2 The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Garraght~ v. Jordan, applied the Loudermill balancing test in a case where plaintiff, a prison warden in Virginia, was suspended without pay from his job for frve days and subsequently challenged the suspension on due process and other grounds. The facts of that case were that Garraghty was ordered by his superior to travel from his post to his superior's office in order to discuss allegations of insubordination. Garraghty was not told directly that the meeting could result in his suspension, nor was he informed directly about the nature of the accusations against him until he arrived at the meeting with his superior. Garraghty was given an. opportunity to explain his act of insubordination at the meeting. However, "Virginia regulations in place at the time of Garraghty's suspension only allowed for an appeal of susgensions of less than ten days so Garraghty had na post suspension administrative hearing."13 Garraghty was suspended for five days without pay by his superior after fmdurg his explanation of the insubordination lacking. After analyzing the balancing factors listed above, the. Garrat~.,h~ Court noted that, "[f]urther formalizing the suspension process and escalating its formality and adversary .nature may not only make it too costly as 14 regular disciplinary tool but also destroy its effectiveness as part of the disciplinaryy process. Ultimately, the Garry t Court held that, "[w]e agree with the district court that Garraghty received `all the hearing he was entitled to."'15 Urange County employees receive greater due process protections prior to receiving a suspension without pay than did_Garraghty. First, unlike iin Garragl~ty where the employee was merely directed to his superior's office and had to assume he was being called to answer for his insubordination, County employees are given notice that includes the specific reasons for the proposed discipline and a brief summary of the information which management believes supports the proposed action prior to the pre-disciplinary conference.;6 Thereafter, the pre- discipiinary conference is held with the employee's department head and/or management representatives wherein the employee receives a review of the fads giving rise to the proposed dismissal and the employee has an opportunity to respond to the charges against him. The applicable rules in C}rarrge County require the department head to consider the information the employee has presented at the pre-disciplinary conference prior to determining if the disciplinary action is warranted. Finally, also unlike Garry t County employees are given notice of their appeal rights and can challenge the disciplinary action via the formal appeals process that includes being represented by counsel at a hearing before the County Personnel Board. Because the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution requires a gre- deprivation hearing or conference in the public employment context that is no mare formal. or extensive than those required by Garra~h~, and because the County's pre-deprivation is G ~ at 130 i (cit[ttg Laudermill). 13 Id at 1297. 14Id. at 1302, quoting Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 583 (1970. 15 Id. at 1299. i6 Section 4.c., Appendix I, Article IX, Orange County Personnel Ordinance.