Arnett v. Kennedy
Encyclopedia
Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court
decision rejecting a nonprobationary federal civil service employee's claim to a full hearing prior to dismissal. The governing federal law prescribed not only grounds for removal but also removal procedures. The employee could only be removed for "cause," but the procedures did not provide for an adversary hearing.
(OEO), was fired pursuant to the Lloyd-La Follette Act
, 5 U.S.C.S. § 7501, after he was found to have recklessly made statements that an officer of the OEO had been involved in bribes. The employee was advised of his rights under regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission
(Commission) and the OEO on how he could reply to the charges and appeal any subsequent dismissal to the Commission or OEO. Appellee filed suit upon the claim that the discharge procedures authorized by the Act
had denied him and others due process of law. The lower court sided with the employee. The Supreme Court reversed in a plurality opinion. Six of the Justices found that the Lloyd-La Follette Act had created an expectancy of job retention requiring procedural protection under the Due Process Clause. Five of the Justices then concluded that the procedure given the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Due Process. Furthermore, the court concluded that post-termination procedures provided by the Commission and the OEO adequately protected appellee's liberty interest in not being wrongfully stigmatized by untrue administrative charges. Finally, the Court held the Lloyd-La Follette Act was not impermissibly vague or overbroad in its regulation of federal employee speech
.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
decision rejecting a nonprobationary federal civil service employee's claim to a full hearing prior to dismissal. The governing federal law prescribed not only grounds for removal but also removal procedures. The employee could only be removed for "cause," but the procedures did not provide for an adversary hearing.
Overview
A federal civil service employee in the Office of Economic OpportunityOffice of Economic Opportunity
The Office of Economic Opportunity was the agency responsible for administering most of the War on Poverty programs created as part of United States President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society legislative agenda.- History :...
(OEO), was fired pursuant to the Lloyd-La Follette Act
Lloyd-La Follette Act
The Lloyd-La Follette Act in 1912 began the process of protecting civil servants in the United States from unwarranted or abusive removal by codifying "just cause" standards previously embodied in presidential orders. It defines "just causes" as those that would promote the "efficiency of the...
, 5 U.S.C.S. § 7501, after he was found to have recklessly made statements that an officer of the OEO had been involved in bribes. The employee was advised of his rights under regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission
Civil Service Commission
-Chairmen:*John Houghton MHK, 2004-date*George Waft MLC, 1996-2004*Clare Christian MLC, 1981-1982*Noel Cringle MLC, 1992-1996*Walter Gilbey, years unknown...
(Commission) and the OEO on how he could reply to the charges and appeal any subsequent dismissal to the Commission or OEO. Appellee filed suit upon the claim that the discharge procedures authorized by the Act
Act
Act may mean:* Act/Power is a philosophical notion defined by Aristotle and known as entelechy* Act , a British band* Act , a document recording the legality of a transaction or contract...
had denied him and others due process of law. The lower court sided with the employee. The Supreme Court reversed in a plurality opinion. Six of the Justices found that the Lloyd-La Follette Act had created an expectancy of job retention requiring procedural protection under the Due Process Clause. Five of the Justices then concluded that the procedure given the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Due Process. Furthermore, the court concluded that post-termination procedures provided by the Commission and the OEO adequately protected appellee's liberty interest in not being wrongfully stigmatized by untrue administrative charges. Finally, the Court held the Lloyd-La Follette Act was not impermissibly vague or overbroad in its regulation of federal employee speech
Speech
Speech is the human faculty of speaking.It may also refer to:* Public speaking, the process of speaking to a group of people* Manner of articulation, how the body parts involved in making speech are manipulated...
.