Please follow this link.
Under the US Supreme Court's holding in Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 US 532 (1985), public employees who may be dismissed only for cause posess a property interest in their continued employment. The "just cause" limitation in the employer's right to terminate an employee is commonly provided for in the union collective bargaining agreement, memorandum of understanding, the manual of policies and procedures, or in any other kind of agreement between a public employer and employee.
Having a protected property interest in employeement means that any deprivation of such property, such as termination of employment, requires some kind of due process, which should include a notice and an opportunity to be heard at a hearing prior to being terminated. Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 US 306 (1950). Therefore, a public epmloyee with a property interest in his continued employment must be provided with oral or written notice of charges and accusations against him, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story. This kind of process must take place before the termination.
In Calfornia, due process mandates that the employee be accorded certain procedural rights before being removed. At a minimum, these pre-termination safeguards must include a notice of the proposed action against an employee, the reaosns for the action to be taken, a copy of the charges and materials upon which the action is based, and the right to respond to the allegations, either orally or inwriting, to the authroitiy initiating the discipline to be imposed. Jones v Omnitrans 125 Cal.App.4th 273 (2004). Any such post-termination review or hearing alone does not satisfy the due process requirement that must be provided to the above-referenced employees.
