 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. State6/28/2002
er must "establish that the wrongdoing was of such severity that the employee in fact would have been terminated on those grounds alone if the employer had known of it at the time of the discharge." Id. Due process considerations were never at issue. Cf. Vorwald v. Sch. Dist. of River Falls, 167 Wis. 2d 549, 557, 482 N.W.2d 93 (1992) (at-will employees have no property interest in employment).
. Due process considerations and protections are certainly at issue in this case however. Brenon is a permanent civil service employee, and as such, he has a property interest in his employment pursuant to statute. See Wis. Stat. § 230.34(1)(a) (such employees "may be removed, suspended without pay, discharged, reduced in base pay or demoted only for just cause"); see also Arneson v. Jezwinski, 225 Wis. 2d 371, 393, 592 N.W.2d 606 (1999) ("An employee who may be dismissed only for 'just cause' has a property interest in continued employment which is protected by the due process clause of the federal constitution."). Because of this property interest, the statutes require the appointing authority to provide notice to the employee prior to any disciplinary action. See Wis. Stat. § 230.34(1)(b) (requiring the appointing authority to "furnish to the employee in writing the reasons for the [disciplinary] action"). Further, the employee is entitled to a hearing permitting him to address the employer's reasons for any disciplinary action. These pretermination protections are required under the due process clause pursuant to Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985). See Hanson v. Madison Serv. Corp., 150 Wis. 2d 828, 840-46, 443 N.W.2d 315 (Ct. App. 1989).
. We discuss Loudermill briefly. In Loudermill, Loudermill was hired to work as a security guard--a classified civil servant position under Ohio law--for the Cleveland Board of Education. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 535. Shortly thereafter, he was terminated when the Board of Education discovered that he had been convicted of a felony and had failed to report this conviction as required on his job application. Id. Loudermill was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the charge or challenge the dismissal. Id. He filed a federal suit, claiming that Ohio law failed to afford him, as required by the constitution, the opportunity to respond to the charges prior to his removal. Id. at 536. The District Court dismissed the claim, and the Court of Appeals reversed. Id. at 536-37.
. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that Loudermill was not provided proper due process procedures before his termination. The Court noted that Ohio law specifically conferred a property right to Loudermill in his employment, and accordingly, he could not be, pursuant to due process guarantees, deprived of this substantive right except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures. Id. at 538, 548. The Court concluded, however, that the procedures required did not need to be elaborate; they only need to be "an initial check against mistaken decisions--essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action." Id. at 545-46. The essential elements were notice and an opportunity to respond. Id. at 546. The Court noted the private interests in retaining employment--specifically the severity of depriving a person of the means of livelihood. Id. at 542-43. Indeed, it is this specific property interest that necessitates notice and hearing for a civil servant in Wisconsin prior to termination.
. Brenon's property interest in his employment and livelihood existed not only when UWM sought to initially terminate him, but also when it sought to in
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Wisconsin Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|