White v. Busboom, 297 Neb. 717

William White, a corrections officer covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), was placed on unpaid investigatory suspension in April 2010 after a misdemeanor arrest; Major Scott Busboom signed the suspension letter but testified he did not decide to suspend White.
The CBA allowed investigatory suspensions with pay except in certain circumstances (e.g., alleged gross misconduct or felony-related workplace matters); the suspension letter cited CBA §10.3.b and misstated another article.
White remained off pay after charges were dismissed in March 2011; the Department initiated a second unpaid suspension and later terminated White for refusal to meet with investigators.
An administrative reviewer later set aside the second suspension and ordered back pay for the period from dismissal of charges to discharge; the Department did not appeal.
White sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivation of a property interest in continued employment without due process; the district court dismissed the Department (sovereign immunity) but found Busboom individually liable and awarded damages and attorney fees.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding Busboom entitled to qualified immunity and that White failed to show a postdeprivation due process violation because he did not invoke available grievance procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Busboom violated clearly established predeprivation due process rights by signing unpaid suspension	White: unpaid suspension deprived his property interest without required notice/hearing	Busboom: law did not clearly require predeprivation notice/hearing for unpaid suspension; qualified immunity applies	Court: No clearly established right for unpaid suspension; Busboom entitled to qualified immunity
Whether White waived due process claim by failing to timely use CBA grievance procedures	White: CBA procedures were inadequate for presuspension rights; failure to grieve should not bar claim	Busboom: failure to pursue grievance bars claim or supports immunity	Court: Postdeprivation procedures were adequate; White’s failure to invoke them defeats postdeprivation claim
Whether actions amounted to constructive discharge requiring Loudermill pretermination protections	White: lengthy sham investigation and unpaid suspension effectively forced discharge	Busboom: constructive-discharge standards unclear; employer may not be on notice	Court: Right in constructive-discharge context was not clearly established; cannot impose liability on Busboom
Whether White is entitled to attorney fees under §1988	White: prevailed below and should recover fees	Busboom: prevailing party issue; qualified immunity and failure to prevail on §1983	Court: White not prevailing party on federal claim; no attorney fees awarded

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (public-employee pretermination notice and opportunity to respond are minimum due‑process requirements)
Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) (Mathews balancing applied; unpaid suspension may be permissible without predeprivation hearing where prompt postsuspension process exists)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor balancing test for procedural due process)
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (constitutional violation depends on adequacy of state-provided process; postdeprivation remedies relevant)
Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979) (statute allowing suspension without a prompt postdeprivation hearing violated due process)
FDIC v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230 (1988) (administrative postdeprivation procedures providing hearing within specified period can satisfy due process)
Scott v. County of Richardson, 280 Neb. 694 (2010) (Nebraska decision holding adequate posttermination grievance procedures can cure pretermination due‑process deficiencies)