David Hieber v. Oakland County, et al.

Summary

The court denies David Hieber’s motion for summary judgment on his pretermination procedural due process claim under Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill. The court holds that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether Oakland County provided Hieber a meaningful opportunity to respond and whether the outcome of his pretermination hearing was predetermined. The court also rejects defendants’ arguments that the motion was untimely or that Hieber waived the predetermination claim.

Holdings

1. A pretermination hearing with a predetermined outcome does not satisfy procedural due process, but the evidence here presented a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the outcome was predetermined.
2. Hieber was not entitled to summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find for defendants on whether the pretermination process provided a meaningful opportunity to respond and whether the outcome was predetermined.
3. The motion was timely because the court's June 23, 2025 scheduling order set July 31, 2025 as the motions deadline, and Hieber filed on that date.
4. Hieber did not waive the predetermination claim by failing to raise it in the earlier summary-judgment briefing or on appeal, and he could raise it in the later court-authorized summary-judgment motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Oakland County's pretermination Loudermill process was a sham because the termination decision was predetermined.
2. Whether Hieber was entitled to summary judgment on his pretermination procedural due process claim.
3. Whether Hieber's summary-judgment motion was untimely under the governing scheduling order.
4. Whether Hieber waived his predetermination theory by not raising it in the earlier summary-judgment briefing or on appeal.

Disposition

other