Bishop v. Wood
- Decided
- June 10, 1976
- Docket
- 74-1303
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,973 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds, overruled in part on other grounds (not yet verified) · Keenan v. Allan
What later courts said
- holding that the existence of a legitimate property right in employment is determined by reference to state law — Thomas B. Hennigh v. City of Shawnee, Terry Powell, and Hank Land (1998)
- holding that public employee who serves at pleasure of employer has no expectation of continued employment, and therefore no property interest in job — Ramsey v. City of Sand Point (1997)
- holding that the termination of an employee-at-will where the reasons for the termination were not publicly disclosed does not implicate a liberty interest — Wuchte v. McNeil (1998)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
Acting on the recommendation of the Chief of Police, the City Manager of Marion, N. C., terminated petitioner's employment as a policeman without affording him a hearing to determine the sufficiency of the cause for his discharge. Petitioner brought suit contending [*343] that since a city ordinance classified him as a “permanent employee,” he had a constitutional right to a pretermin-ation hearing.[1] During pretrial discovery petitioner was advised that his dismissal was based on a failure to follow certain orders, poor attendance at police training classes, causing low morale, and conduct unsuited to an officer. Petitioner and several other police officers filed affidavits essentially denying the truth of these charges. The District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment.[2] The Court of Appeals affirmed,[3] and we granted certiorari, 423 U. S. 890.
The questions for us to decide are (1) whether petitioner’s employment status was a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,[4] and (2) assuming that the explanation for his discharge was false, whether that false explanation deprived him of an interest in liberty protected by that Clause.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 (1976)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.