Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
27 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1987–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermillgreen2 sentences2024Inmates should look 1 A Loudermill hearing is a pre-termination due process hearing required to be provided to a public employee, as established in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985). 3 at the prison employee in a professional light and use them as a role model. 2024Inmates should look 1 A Loudermill hearing is a pre-termination due process hearing required to be provided to a public employee, as established in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985). 3 at the prison employee in a professional light and use them as a role model. | 4 | 22 |
Adamovich v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1987In Adamovich v. Department of Public Welfare, 95 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 22 , 504 A.2d 952, 957 , this court adopted the Loudermill test, concluding that “all *176 the employee is entitled to at this [pre-termination] stage of the proceedings, according to Loudermill, is notice of the charges, an explanation of the employers evidence and an opportunity to respond and present his side of the story in an informal pretermination hearing.” In the case at bar, Appellant was discharged because she held compensated positions with both the Board of Education and the Department of Police in violation of S 1987In Adamovich v. Department of Public Welfare, 95 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 22 , 504 A.2d 952, 957 , this court adopted the Loudermill test, concluding that “all *176 the employee is entitled to at this [pre-termination] stage of the proceedings, according to Loudermill, is notice of the charges, an explanation of the employers evidence and an opportunity to respond and present his side of the story in an informal pretermination hearing.” In the case at bar, Appellant was discharged because she held compensated positions with both the Board of Education and the Department of Police in violation of S | 1 | 2 |
Office of the Attorney General v. Council 13, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employeesgreen1 sentence2020Employees, AFL-CIO, 844 A.2d 1217, 1224 (Pa. 2004). 9 The Arbitrator reinstated Grievant because the Borough failed to provide Grievant adequate procedural due process at his Loudermill hearing by not telling him the reason for his employment termination. | 1 | 1 |
Harmon v. Mifflin County School Districtgreen1 sentence2020Dist., 651 A.2d 681, 685-86 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (explaining that Lyness does not apply when school boards terminate employees because the School Code provides a right to a hearing, subject to judicial review, thereby “ensuring against the risk of arbitrary action”); accord McDaniels v. Flick, 59 F.3d 446, 459-60 (3d Cir. 1995) (explaining that the pre-termination Loudermill hearing “merely serves as an ‘initial check against mistaken decisions’” and an impartial Loudermill hearing is not necessary as long as the state provides a “neutral tribunal at the post-termination stage”). | 1 | 1 |
Yost v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen1 sentence2020Bd. of Review, 42 A.3d 1158, 1162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
McDaniels v. Flickgreen1 sentence2020Dist., 651 A.2d 681, 685-86 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (explaining that Lyness does not apply when school boards terminate employees because the School Code provides a right to a hearing, subject to judicial review, thereby “ensuring against the risk of arbitrary action”); accord McDaniels v. Flick, 59 F.3d 446, 459-60 (3d Cir. 1995) (explaining that the pre-termination Loudermill hearing “merely serves as an ‘initial check against mistaken decisions’” and an impartial Loudermill hearing is not necessary as long as the state provides a “neutral tribunal at the post-termination stage”). | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences2018See Henderson, 77 A.3d at 721-22 (delay of three to four-and-one-half months from the incident dates to the claimant’s discharge was sufficiently explained by the employer’s 7 “A Loudermill hearing is a pre-termination hearing given to a public employee that is required by due process, as established in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985).” Ray v. Brookville Area Sch. 2018See Henderson, 77 A.3d at 721-22 (delay of three to four-and-one-half months from the incident dates to the claimant’s discharge was sufficiently explained by the employer’s 7 “A Loudermill hearing is a pre-termination hearing given to a public employee that is required by due process, as established in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985).” Ray v. Brookville Area Sch. | 1 | 1 |
Schanne v. Addisgreen2 sentences2015See Schanne, 898 F. Supp. 2d at 755-56 . 2015See Schanne, 898 F.Supp.2d at 755-56 . | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Brinkgreen2 sentences2014Smith v. Brink, 385 Pa.Super. 597 , 561 A.2d 1253, 1255 (1989). 2014Smith v. Brink, 385 Pa.Super. 597 , 561 A.2d 1253, 1255 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Olson v. Borough of Avalongreen2 sentences2010See also Olson v. Borough of Avalon, 811 A.2d 66 , 70 n. 6 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002). 3 . 2010See also Olson v. Borough of Avalon, 811 A.2d 66 , 70 n. 6 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
Lopatic v. Swatara Townshipgreen2 sentences1990See Adamovich v. Department of Public Welfare, 95 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 22, 504 A.2d 952 (1986). [5] Lopatic v. Swatara Township, 133 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 431, 575 A.2d 675, 677-78 (1990). 1990See Adamovich v. Department of Public Welfare, 95 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 22, 504 A.2d 952 (1986). [5] Lopatic v. Swatara Township, 133 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 431, 575 A.2d 675, 677-78 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ray v. Brookville Area School District
green
2 sentences2023“Waste” is defined as “[a]n employer’s conduct or omissions which result in substantial abuse, misuse, destruction or loss of funds or resources belonging to or derived from Commonwealth or political subdivision sources.” 43 P.S. §1422. 3 “A Loudermill hearing is a pre-termination hearing given to a public employee that is required by due process, as established in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).” Ray v. Brookville Area School District, 19 A.3d 29 , 31 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). 3 The facts of record, as developed in discovery, follow. 2023“Waste” is defined as “[a]n employer’s conduct or omissions which result in substantial abuse, misuse, destruction or loss of funds or resources belonging to or derived from Commonwealth or political subdivision sources.” 43 P.S. §1422. 3 “A Loudermill hearing is a pre-termination hearing given to a public employee that is required by due process, as established in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).” Ray v. Brookville Area School District, 19 A.3d 29 , 31 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). 3 The facts of record, as developed in discovery, follow. | 8 | 2016–2023 |
Chapman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
2 sentences2020Dist., 19 A.3d 29 , 31 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). 12 Chapman, 20 A.3d at 611 , Claimant’s “assertion that [he received an] improper Loudermill hearing has [no] bearing on his receipt of [UC] benefits,” Yost v. Unemployment Comp. 2020Dist., 19 A.3d 29 , 31 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). 12 Chapman, 20 A.3d at 611 , Claimant’s “assertion that [he received an] improper Loudermill hearing has [no] bearing on his receipt of [UC] benefits,” Yost v. Unemployment Comp. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mifflinburg Area Education Ass'n v. Mifflinburg Area School District
green
2 sentences2016In support, it points to this Court's holding that Section 1121 of the [Public] School Code requires that all contracts between school districts and professional employees contain a clause stating that none of the provisions of the Public School Code may be waived by school district employees. [ 10 ] Mifflinburg Area Education Association v. Mifflinburg Area School District, 555 Pa. 326 , 724 A.2d 339 , 342 (1999). 2016In support, it points to this Court's holding that Section 1121 of the [Public] School Code requires that all contracts between school districts and professional employees contain a clause stating that none of the provisions of the Public School Code may be waived by school district employees. [ 10 ] Mifflinburg Area Education Association v. Mifflinburg Area School District, 555 Pa. 326 , 724 A.2d 339 , 342 (1999). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gilbert v. Homar
green
2 sentences2001Commonly referred to as a “Loudermill hearing,” the hearing “need only include oral or written notice of the charges, an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an opportunity for the employee to tell his [or her] side of the story.” Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 , 117 S.Ct. 1807 (1997). 2001Commonly referred to as a “Loudermill hearing,” the hearing “need only include oral or written notice of the charges, an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an opportunity for the employee to tell his [or her] side of the story.” Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 , 117 S.Ct. 1807 (1997). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.