136 F.4th 308
6th Cir.2025Background
- David Hieber, former head of Oakland County’s Equalization Department, was terminated after an internal investigation into alleged creation of a hostile work environment.
- The County began investigating after workplace complaints, including one related to Hieber’s comment about a diversity survey and perceived hostility.
- Hieber was placed on paid leave and subsequently terminated after a brief pretermination hearing, which he claimed did not allow him to plead his case.
- Hieber appealed the termination through internal County channels but abandoned the process and filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Michigan law for due process violations, political retaliation, defamation, and age discrimination.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Oakland County and the supervisor on all claims; Hieber appealed the ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretermination Due Process | Hieber was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard before termination. | The County provided notice, evidence, and a hearing meeting minimum due process requirements. | Reversed: Sufficient factual dispute; process may have been inadequate. |
| Post-termination Due Process | County's appeal process was inadequate, violating due process. | Hieber waived post-termination claim by abandoning appeal; process was available. | Affirmed: Claim waived by failing to pursue County appeal. |
| Political-Affiliation Retaliation | Termination was based on perceived affiliation with former Republican administration. | No evidence Hieber engaged in protected political conduct or was targeted for affiliation. | Affirmed: No evidence of political-based retaliation. |
| Defamation | Supervisor’s emails implied Hieber was dangerous, damaging his reputation. | Emails were privileged, sent for safety reasons, no evidence of actual malice. | Affirmed: Qualified privilege applies; no actual malice shown. |
| Age Discrimination (ELCRA and §1983) | Termination pretext for age bias, based on hostile comments and early retirement program. | Hieber's termination based on honest belief in misconduct after investigation; reasons nonpretext. | Affirmed: No pretext; termination based on legitimate reasons, not age discrimination. |
| Qualified Immunity (Jen, official/individual) | Jen individually liable for due process violations. | Jen did not control the process or violate clear law personally. | Affirmed: Jen entitled to qualified immunity individually; not liable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (public employees with a property interest in their job are entitled to notice and a pretermination hearing)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due process analysis considers the adequacy and flexibility of procedures)
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner)
- Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (pretermination hearings can be minimal when followed by adequate post-termination review)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (individual-capacity constitutional claims require direct personal involvement)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Majewski v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 274 F.3d 1106 (honest belief rule for employers in discrimination cases)