Arnett v. Kennedy

Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected a nonprobationary federal civil service employee's claim to a full hearing prior to dismissal. The governing federal law prescribed not only grounds for removal but also removal procedures. The employee could only be removed for "cause," but the procedures did not provide for an adversarial hearing.

Arnett v. Kennedy
Argued November 7, 1973
Decided April 16, 1974
Full case nameArnett, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, et al. v. Kennedy, et al.
Citations416 U.S. 134 (more)
94 S. Ct. 1633; 40 L. Ed. 2d 15; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 125
Case history
PriorKennedy v. Sanchez, 349 F. Supp. 863 (N.D. Ill. 1972)
Holding
Post-termination procedures provided by the Civil Service Commission and Office of Economic Opportunity were found to have adequately protected appellee's liberty interests. In addition, the Lloyd-La Follette Act was neither impermissibly vague or overbroad.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
PluralityRehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart
ConcurrencePowell, joined by Blackmun
Concur/dissentWhite
DissentDouglas
DissentMarshall, joined by Douglas, Brennan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Background

A federal civil service employee in the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), was fired pursuant to the Lloyd-La Follette Act (5 U.S.C. § 7501) after he was found to have recklessly made statements that an officer of the OEO had been involved in bribes. The employee was advised of his rights under regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission (Commission) and the OEO on how he could reply to the charges and appeal any subsequent dismissal to the Commission or OEO. Appellee filed suit upon the claim that the discharge procedures authorized by the Act had denied him and others due process of law. The lower court sided with the employee.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court reversed in a plurality opinion. Six of the Justices found that the Lloyd-La Follette Act had created an expectancy of job retention requiring procedural protection under the Due Process Clause. Five of the Justices then concluded that the procedure given the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Due Process. Furthermore, the Court concluded that post-termination procedures provided by the Commission and the OEO adequately protected appellee's liberty interest in not being wrongfully stigmatized by untrue administrative charges. Finally, the Court held the Lloyd-La Follette Act was not impermissibly vague or overbroad in its regulation of federal employee speech.[1][2]

gollark: That and GTech™ customary units.
gollark: Kilocapital.
gollark: We have an antimatter space station in high solar orbit.
gollark: Metric good.
gollark: In Earth conditions, not necessarily otherwise.

References
  1. "Arnett v. Kennedy - 416 U.S. 134 (1974)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 30 October 2013.
  2. Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.