From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
United States Supreme Court
470 U.S. 532 (1985)
James Loudermill (plaintiff) was employed by the Cleveland Board of Education (Board) (defendant) as a security guard. Loudermill was a classified civil servant, which meant that under Ohio law he could only be terminated for cause, with a right to administrative review if terminated. On his employment application, Loudermill stated that he had never been convicted of a felony. When the Board later discovered that Loudermill had been convicted of a felony, he was terminated for dishonesty in his application. He was not given an opportunity to respond to the charges of dishonesty or to challenge his termination. Loudermill appealed his termination to the Cleveland Civil Service Commission. Loudermill asserted that he believed his prior conviction was a misdemeanor instead of a felony, and a referee recommended reinstating Loudermill, but the commission ultimately upheld Loudermill's dismissal. Loudermill brought suit in federal district court, alleging that the Ohio statute was unconstitutional because it did not allow employees a pre-termination opportunity to respond to charges against them. According to Loudermill, this denied terminated employees of liberty and property without due process. The district court dismissed Loudermill's complaint for failure to state a claim because the Ohio statute that created the property right in continued employment also set forth discharge procedures, and the fact that those procedures were followed in Loudermill's case meant that he was given all the process he was due. The court also found that Loudermill's post-termination hearing was sufficient to protect his liberty interests. The appellate court reversed, concluding that Loudermill's due-process rights had been violated. Although the appellate court agreed with the district court's conclusion about the post-termination hearing, the court held that an employee's interest in retaining employment, plus the value of presenting evidence before the employee's dismissal, outweighed any additional administrative burden of holding a pre-termination hearing. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
Concurrence (Marshall, J.)
Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 541,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.