*1 CHAIRMAN STATE BOEHNING, COMMISSIONER, et al. v. INDIANA COMMISSION, HIGHWAY ASSN., INC., STATE EMPLOYEES et al.
No. 74-1544. Decided November Per Curiam.
Respondent Musgrave, of the Indiana State was Commission, dismissed for her cause, request pretermination hearing having for a been denied. brought She then asserting this 42 U. S. C. 1983 suit hearing rights rooted in the Federal Constitution and seeking damages injunctive relief. The District controlling yet Court held that the state statutes, as un- might require hearing- the state courts, by demanded and so obviate decision on issue. therefore abstained con- until struction of sought Indiana statutes had been in state courts. The Court for the Seventh Cir- finding nothing cuit language of- the support relevant state statutes that would claim pretermination resolving and then the favor.
We reverse. Where the Indiana Administrative Adjudication Act is applicable, final “[t]he order or par case
determination except upon be made ticular shall not person *2 thereof.” place and nature time, of the timely and notice to all applies Act (1974). The 4-22-1-5 § Ind. Code particular persons to “exclud applicable issues or cases or of an officer or discharge the dismissal ing . . . hearings by including but employee superior officer, a for or on of officer discharge dismissal hear or directs such the law authorizes cause where Ap of may that the Court 4-22-1-2. be ing.” Comm’n see Railroad peals “forecast,” is correct its when 312 499 that Co., v. Pullman U. S. 496, (1941), the Administra the together by state courts, Bipartisan Per and the Indiana Adjudication tive Act is System which to Act, sonnel expressly employees and which neither Commission not precludes nor would authorizes termination hearings, the respondent demanded. On require the hearing fairly statutory provisions may other the relevant hand, to hearing rights respondent;* be to extend such read adopt the Indiana courts possibility *The that state would contrary that of the of for Seventh construction to Court fact that construction Circuit is somewhat enhanced may adopted by fairly said the Seventh Circuit be to raise process problems procedural recent due decisions under constitutional g., partic Court, Kennedy, (1974), of e. 416 U. 134 this S. ularly appears assumed, if, the Seventh to have the Admin as Circuit Adjudication would a state- Act leave without istrative right law time in with her dismissal to connection may state be their reluctant attribute to cause. courts legislature pass raising prob an intention to a statute lems, legislative particularly such intent unless is clear. Robison, Dulles, 116, (1958); Kent v. 357 129-130 Johnson v. U. S. 361, (1974). Field, 415 U. 366-367 Abstention in Constitu S. Doctrine, 122 Scope tional Cases: of the Pullman Abstention U. Pa. L. Rev.
Although right federal constitutional time, discharge at some in connection for cause with 8 in these that the District circumstances we conclude right
Court was to abstain from the federal deciding pending resolution the state-law Bell question in the state courts. Meridian v. Southern Bozanich, Co., & T. T. 358 U. 640 Reetz (1959); 82 Forssenius, U. S. Harman v. (1970); Co., Ridge Fornaris Tool Comm’n Co., Railroad v. Pullman supra. The petition for certiorari is the judgment granted, of Appeals the Court is is the case remanded for further consideration consistent with this opinion.
So ordered. *3 Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting. position of the Court continues the strangulation
of 42 recently C. 1983 that been evident. Ltd., v. Pursue, Huffman road has been longer expensive more than planned. the Congress Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. (1959) I J., dissenting). would affirm the decision (Douglas, of the Court of Appeals. may already have been Perry resolved in v. favor in Sindermann, Regents Roth, S.U. Board U. S. 564 Kennedy, supra, the tenured employee’s right preremoval has been determined only this Court providing context of a statute notice and an opportunity to respond writing in coupled removal with a full before hearing after concurring opinion removal. See Powell, J., Kennedy, supra,
Arnett 170.