By Anthony Rice
In Washington v. Burley, a School District Police Chief’s due process claim survived summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the employer gave him “an opportunity to present his side of the story.” The court held that a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer never allowed the chief to submit a written response or otherwise present his response before being terminated.
The plaintiff, Russel Washington, was hired as Chief of Police for the La Marque Independent School District in 1995. Washington held that position until 2010 when he was indicted on felony charges—which were later dropped. After the indictment, the Assistant Superintendent sent Washington a letter placing him on paid administrative leave. While on paid administrative leave, Washington was advised, in writing, of a board hearing to vote on his termination. He was also advised of the option to respond with a written statement outlining the allegations against him, and to schedule a meeting with the assistant superintendent, but not the termination decision-makers, to discuss the options available to him.
Washington is entitled to “oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story.” The issue in this case was not notice, but rather, whether Washington received an adequate opportunity to present his side of the story via a pretermination hearing. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court stated
that “the pretermination ‘hearing,’ though necessary, need not be elaborate.” The Court noted that “something less than a full evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action” and concluded that the “opportunity to present reasons, either in person or in writing, why proposed action should not be taken is a fundamental due process requirement.” . . .
Thus, Washington’s right to pretermination due process would have been satisfied had [the employer] provided him with even a short, informal opportunity to present his side of the story to the board members who would vote on his termination. However, the summary judgment record does not make clear that Washington had that opportunity. Therefore, neither party is entitled to summary judgment on the claim that the pretermination hearing failed to provide procedural due process.
