pretermination hearing in Massachusetts

1993While due process requires a pretermination hearing when a person having a property interest in his employment is terminated, Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985), the liberty interest here involved is the plaintiff’s good name, and the question remains unanswered whether he is entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing, 5 that is, “a name-clearing hearing before any publication of defamatory statements in his personnel file or only afterward.” Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 409 Mass, at 551 (emphasis supplied).

1993In discussing the requirements of a pretermination hearing, the court in Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 546-547 , held that a tenured public employee was “entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story.” A “pretermination hearing need not definitively resolve the propriety of the discharge” but rather should be “an initial check against mistaken decisions, — essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the

2025See Gilbert, 520 U.S. at 933-934 (lack of presuspension hearing was constitutionally adequate because arrest and felony charges provided adequate assurance that suspension had reasonable grounds).

2025See Gilbert, 520 U.S. at 933-934 (lack of presuspension hearing was constitutionally adequate because arrest and felony charges provided adequate assurance that suspension had reasonable grounds).

1993See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 157 (1974), and Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle , 369 Mass at 764 n. 14, both indicating that a postdismissal name-clearing hearing sufficiently complies with due process requirements.

1993See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 157 (1974), and Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle , 369 Mass at 764 n. 14, both indicating that a postdismissal name-clearing hearing sufficiently complies with due process requirements.

1994Forsyth School of Dental Hygienists v. Board of Registration in Dentistry, 404 Mass. 211, 214-17 (1989).

1993While due process requires a pretermination hearing when a person having a property interest in his employment is terminated, Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985), the liberty interest here involved is the plaintiff's good name, and the question remains unanswered whether he is entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing, [5] that is, "a name-clearing hearing before any publication of defamatory statements in his personnel file or only afterward." Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 409 Mass. at 551 (emphasis supplied).

1971That case suggested that the necessity of a hearing upon a revocation of the suspension of a Federal sentence has no “basis in thfe Constitution apart from any statute.” It was stated in the opinion that “suspension of sentence comes as an act of grace to one convicted of a crime, and may be coupled with such conditions in respect of its duration as Congress may impose.” This principle, Baxter argues, has been eroded by decisions like Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 262-263 (holding that welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them and that a p