Section 6 Due Process Protection

• Library: Emp-Emp Law 2000

To qualify for due process protection, the employee must show a constitutional property or liberty interest in the employment, in the sense of a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972). In Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 345–49 (1976), a Supreme Court majority held that there was not a protected property or liberty interest in continued public employment under the applicable (North Carolina) state law, affirming a lower court finding that the plaintiff’s employment under an ordinance was at will. By contrast, Vinyard v. King, 728 F.2d 428, 431–32 (10^th Cir. 1984), found there was a protected property interest in continued public employment under the applicable (Oklahoma) state law because an employee handbook provided discharge only for cause; thus, “termination . . . without a hearing to determine whether cause existed, was a violation of [42 U.S.C.] section 1983.” Id. at 433.

A public employee in Missouri is entitled to due process protection in connection with termination from employment if that employee has a property interest or liberty interest in the job. A property interest is a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment, which can arise by virtue of a statute, regulation, or contract that gives the employee a legitimate expectation of continued employment. Belton v. Board of Police Comm’rs of Kansas City, 708 S.W.2d 131 (Mo. banc 1986); State ex rel. Donelon v. Division of Employment Sec., 971 S.W.2d 869 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998); Pace v. Moriarty, 83 F.3d 261 (8^th Cir. 1996). By virtue of the state merit system statutes, regular nonprobationary employees of the State of Missouri have a constitutionally protected property interest in their jobs. Thomas v. Metzler,978 S.W.2d 483, 487 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998); Division of Family Servs. v. Cade, 939 S.W.2d 546 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997).

A tenured school teacher has a property...