Summary
The Third Circuit considered whether a Pennsylvania Capitol Police officer was entitled to a pre-suspension hearing before being suspended without pay. The court held that, absent extraordinary circumstances, due process requires a brief and informal pre-suspension hearing even when post-suspension union grievance procedures are available. The court nevertheless concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established when the suspension occurred.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether, absent extraordinary circumstances, the Fourteenth Amendment requires a brief and informal pre-suspension hearing before Pennsylvania's classified-service police officer may be suspended without pay, even when post-suspension union grievance procedures are available.
- Whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the asserted right to a pre-suspension hearing, in the presence of post-suspension union grievance procedures, was not clearly established when Schmidt was suspended.
- Whether Schmidt received constitutionally adequate pre-termination process when he was given notice describing the conduct underlying the proposed termination but not the specific rules allegedly violated.
Holdings
- Absent extraordinary circumstances, due process requires notice and a brief, informal hearing before a Pennsylvania classified-service policeman is suspended without pay, even when union grievance procedures later provide a full remedy for an erroneous suspension.
- Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, in July 2006, it was not clearly established that a Pennsylvania police officer was entitled to a pre-suspension hearing despite the availability of post-suspension union grievance procedures.
- Schmidt received constitutionally adequate pre-termination process because the notice described the conduct underlying the proposed termination with sufficient detail, even though it did not identify the specific rules allegedly violated.
Key quotations
“However, because this rule was not clearly established at the time of Schmidt's suspension, we conclude that appellees are entitled to qualified immunity.” (639 F.3d at 589-90)
“We therefore conclude that, absent extraordinary circumstances, due process requires notice and a hearing prior to suspension without pay, even where union grievance procedures, after the fact, fully compensate erroneously suspended employees.” (639 F.3d at 597)
Factual background
Michael Schmidt, a Pennsylvania Capitol Police officer and classified civil-service employee, entered a fellow officer's complaint against senior Capitol Police officials into the METRO system. Three days later, Schmidt was suspended without pay without a pre-suspension hearing. He later received a union grievance arbitration award providing back pay for the suspension and was subsequently terminated after a pre-disciplinary conference; a later arbitration ordered his reinstatement without back pay, seniority, or benefits for the termination period.
Procedural history
In the first action, the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment on all claims except Schmidt's due process claim concerning his suspension, then granted reconsideration and entered summary judgment for defendants on that remaining claim based on the availability of post-suspension union grievance procedures. In a later action, the district court rejected a res judicata defense and granted defendants summary judgment on Schmidt's termination due process claim, concluding that the pre-termination notice was adequate. The Third Circuit consolidated the appeals and affirmed both orders.