pretermination hearing in Michigan

1990As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Cleveland Bd of Ed v Loudermill, 470 US 532, 545-546 ; 105 S Ct 1487 ; 84 L Ed 2d 494 (1985), the purpose of a pretermination hearing, unlike a full post-termination adjudicatory proceeding, is not to definitively resolve the propriety of the discharge [but to provide] an initial check against mistaken decisions — essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the *79 charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action.[ [1] ] I FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Scott Kurtz is a tenured teacher who has

1990As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Cleveland Bd of Ed v Loudermill, 470 US 532, 545-546 ; 105 S Ct 1487 ; 84 L Ed 2d 494 (1985), the purpose of a pretermination hearing, unlike a full post-termination adjudicatory proceeding, is not to definitively resolve the propriety of the discharge [but to provide] an initial check against mistaken decisions — essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the *79 charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action.[ [1] ] I FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Scott Kurtz is a tenured teacher who has

2024It should be an initial check against mistaken decisions—essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action.” Plymouth-Canton Comm Sch v State Tenure Comm’n, 435 Mich 76, 86 ; 457 NW2d 656 (1990) (cleaned up).

2024It should be an initial check against mistaken decisions—essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action.” Plymouth-Canton Comm Sch v State Tenure Comm’n, 435 Mich 76, 86 ; 457 NW2d 656 (1990) (cleaned up).

2002Id.

2002Relying on this language, as well as this *16 Court’s decision in Adams v Detroit, 184 Mich App 589 ; 458 NW2d 903 (1990), defendant argues that the posttermination hearing held at plaintiff’s request was sufficient to meet the requirements of the vpa, despite defendant’s failure to afford plaintiff a pretermination hearing.

2002Relying on this language, as well as this *16 Court’s decision in Adams v Detroit, 184 Mich App 589 ; 458 NW2d 903 (1990), defendant argues that the posttermination hearing held at plaintiff’s request was sufficient to meet the requirements of the vpa, despite defendant’s failure to afford plaintiff a pretermination hearing.

1990Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.] See also Brock v Roadway Express, Inc, 481 US 252, 261, 263 ; 107 S Ct 1740 ; 95 L Ed 2d 239 (1987) (emphasizing that the pretermination hearing need be no more than an " 'initial check against mistaken decisions’ ” where expeditious review is available) (plurality opinion, Marshall, J.).

1990Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.] See also Brock v Roadway Express, Inc, 481 US *87 252, 261, 263; 107 S Ct 1740 ; 95 L Ed 2d 239 (1987) (emphasizing that the pretermination hearing need be no more than an "`initial check against mistaken decisions'" where expeditious review is available) (plurality opinion, Marshall, J.).

1986When a discharged employee may receive a post-termination hearing to review adverse personnel action, the pretermination hearing need only be extensive enough to guard against mistaken decisions. [761 F2d 836.] In Williams v City of Seattle, 607 F Supp 714 (WD Wash, 1985), a police sergeant was demoted for allegedly using excessive force on a prisoner without a prior evidentiary hearing.