Schmidt v. Creedon
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16000
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Schmidt, PA Capitol Police officer, suspended without pay on July 18, 2006 after entering a complaint into METRO and after investigation by HR.
- PA Civil Service Act creates a property interest in continued employment or suspension for just cause; pre-suspension hearing ordinarily required absent extraordinary circumstances.
- District Court held no pre-suspension hearing required due to post-suspension union grievance procedures providing remedy.
- Schmidt challenged suspension under Due Process Clause and termination under First Amendment; district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all but due process suspension claim.
- OIG concluded Schmidt and others knowingly entered the complaint to embarrass the Capitol Police; Schmidt faced pre-disciplinary charges and later termination for alleged misconduct.
- Arbitration of Schmidt’s union grievance awarded back pay and benefits for suspension period, and Schmidt was reinstated after termination with limited back pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-suspension hearing required? | Schmidt argues pre-suspension hearing mandatory absent extraordinary circumstances. | Defendants contend post-suspension union grievance suffices under due process. | Absent extraordinary circumstances, pre-suspension hearing required. |
| Do post-suspension grievance procedures satisfy due process? | Union grievance cannot cure lack of pre-suspension process in policing. | Jackson/Dykes show post-deprivation remedies can cure defects; thus pre-hearing not required. | Post-deprivation procedures do not eliminate pre-suspension right; but analysis focuses on qualified immunity. |
| Was Schmidt's pre-suspension right clearly established in 2006? | Loudermill-like protections should have applied to suspension with post-procedure remedies. | Right not clearly established; other circuits suggested post-procedure remedies could suffice. | Right not clearly established; defendants entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Termination due process adequacy? | Pre-termination notice did not specify the rules violated, violating due process. | Notice adequate; pre-termination hearing need not be elaborate. | Termination pre-hearing sufficient; due process satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gikas v. Whitman Sch. Dist., 328 F.3d 731 (3d Cir. 2003) (found due process requirements for property interests; Mathews balancing)
- Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (Supreme Court 1985) (pre-termination hearing required except extraordinary cases)
- Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, 549 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2008) (policemen's property interest under PA statute; pre-suspension hearing generally required)
- Gniotek v. City of Philadelphia, 808 F.2d 241 (3d Cir. 1986) (notice before suspension acceptable when specific grounds provided; due process sufficiency)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court 1972) (property interest requires pre-deprivation process; clarify 'no property interest' test)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court 2001) (two-step qualified immunity analysis)
- Jackson v. Temple Univ., 721 F.2d 931 (3d Cir. 1983) (arbitration can provide essentially the same due process safeguards)
- Dykes v. SEPTA, 68 F.3d 1564 (3d Cir. 1995) (post-deprivation grievance procedures can cure defects; not applicable to pre-hearing necessity)
- Chaney v. Suburban Bus Div. of the Regional Transp. Auth., 52 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 1995) (due process requires pre-termination hearing despite post-termination remedies)
- Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) (pre-termination hearing required when post-procedure remedies exist)
- Cotnoir v. University of Me. Sys., 35 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1994) (pre-hearing required before termination where post-procedure remedies exist)
- Copeland v. Phila. Police Dep't, 840 F.2d 1139 (3d Cir. 1988) (pre-disciplinary hearing notice sufficient with detailed charges)
- McDaniels v. Flick, 59 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 1995) (limited due process rights; pre-hearing not always required)
- Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 v. Tucker, 868 F.2d 74 (3d Cir. 1989) (pretermination due process flexibility; informal hearing acceptable)