Toby J. Sutton v. Patricia Bailey
702 F.3d 444
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Sutton, a Funeral Science Director at Arkansas State University–Mountain Home, was terminated in Nov. 2010 after a meeting where a Facebook post was read aloud to him.
- Bailey and Thomas presented Sutton with an Employee Counseling Statement alleging June 2010 academic fraud and unprofessional conduct; Sutton signed the form after declining to comment.
- The University had a six-step Faculty Grievance Procedure Sutton could have used, but he filed § 1983 suit instead.
- The district court denied qualified immunity on Sutton’s individual-capacity damages claims; the court considered post- Loudermill proceedings potentially constitutionally inadequate.
- The appellate court concludes the informal pre-termination meeting satisfied the minimal pre-termination due process under Loudermill and related cases, and that the officials are entitled to qualified immunity.
- The case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pre-termination hearing violated Sutton’s due process rights. | Sutton contends the meeting was inadequate. | Appellants provided the essential Loudermill-like pre-termination process. | Qualified immunity; no due-process violation found. |
| Whether the post-termination grievance procedures affect the pre-termination process for immunity purposes. | Inadequate post-termination procedures cast doubt on pre-termination process. | Post-termination procedures are not the measure for this pre-termination claim at this stage. | Qualified immunity affirmed; post-termination inadequacy not a basis to deny immunity. |
| Whether notice and opportunity to respond were sufficient given the charges were about a Facebook post. | Notice did not adequately describe all charges. | Charge details were sufficient and tied to the June 2010 incident. | Sufficient pre-termination notice and opportunity to respond; no violation. |
| Whether bias or pretext by the decisionmakers invalidates the pre-termination process. | Biased decisionmakers taint due process. | Post-termination procedures mitigate potential pretext. | Pre-termination meeting did not violate clearly established rights; no immunity issue. |
| Whether Sutton could rely on post-termination procedures to challenge pre-termination process. | Exhaustion of post-termination remedies is required for due process. | Appellants were not responsible for post-termination procedure adequacy. | Qualified immunity; pre-termination process deemed adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (pre-termination hearing required where post-termination process exists; informal procedures may suffice)
- Riggins v. Bd. of Regents of Univ., 790 F.2d 707 (8th Cir. 1986) (pre-termination opportunity to be heard; due process)
- Schleck v. Ramsey Cnty., 939 F.2d 638 (8th Cir. 1991) (informal meetings may satisfy pre-termination hearing when post-termination remedies exist)
- Krentz v. Robertson Fire Prot. Dist., 228 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2000) (pre-termination hearing sufficiency analyzed under Loudermill framework)
- Powell v. Mikulecky, 891 F.2d 1454 (10th Cir. 1989) (constitutional adequacy of pre-termination process assessed against clearly established rights)
- Coleman v. Reed, 147 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 1998) (notice and response procedure in pre-termination context)
- Larson v. City of Fergus Falls, 229 F.3d 692 (8th Cir. 2000) (employer need not disclose all charge details pre-termination; limited notice suffices)
- Duchesne v. Williams, 849 F.2d 1004 (6th Cir. 1988) (post-termination proceedings help uncover bias; not required pre-termination)
- Locurto v. Safir, 264 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2001) (bias concerns addressed by post-termination safeguards)
- Jackson v. St. Joseph State Hosp., 840 F.2d 1387 (8th Cir. 1988) (due process requires opportunity to be heard prior to termination)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1996) (qualified immunity analysis—clearly established rights)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235 (U.S. 2012) (qualified immunity requires objective reasonableness)