Arnett v. Kennedy

Arnett v. Kennedy
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 7, 1973 Decided April 16, 1974
Full case name	Arnett, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, et al. v. Kennedy, et al.
Citations	416 U.S. 134 (more) 94 S. Ct. 1633; 40 L. Ed. 2d 15; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 125
Prior history	Kennedy v. Sanchez, 349 F. Supp. 863 (N.D. Ill. 1972)
Holding
Post-termination procedures provided by the Civil Service Commission and Office of Economic Opportunity were found to have adequately protected appellee's liberty interests. In addition, the Lloyd-La Follette Act was neither impermissibly vague or overbroad.
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan, Jr. Potter Stewart · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun Lewis F. Powell, Jr. · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Plurality	Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart
Concurrence	Powell, joined by Blackmun
Concur/dissent	White
Dissent	Douglas
Dissent	Marshall, joined by Douglas, Brennan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected a nonprobationary federal civil service employee's claim to a full hearing prior to dismissal. The governing federal law prescribed not only grounds for removal but also removal procedures. The employee could only be removed for "cause," but the procedures did not provide for an adversarial hearing.

Background

A federal civil service employee in the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), was fired pursuant to the Lloyd-La Follette Act (5 U.S.C. § 7501) after he was found to have recklessly made statements that an officer of the OEO had been involved in bribes. The employee was advised of his rights under regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission (Commission) and the OEO on how he could reply to the charges and appeal any subsequent dismissal to the Commission or OEO. Appellee filed suit upon the claim that the discharge procedures authorized by the Act had denied him and others due process of law. The lower court sided with the employee.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court reversed in a plurality opinion. Six of the Justices found that the Lloyd-La Follette Act had created an expectancy of job retention requiring procedural protection under the Due Process Clause. Five of the Justices then concluded that the procedure given the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Due Process. Furthermore, the Court concluded that post-termination procedures provided by the Commission and the OEO adequately protected appellee's liberty interest in not being wrongfully stigmatized by untrue administrative charges. Finally, the Court held the Lloyd-La Follette Act was not impermissibly vague or overbroad in its regulation of federal employee speech.^[1][2]

References

1. "Arnett v. Kennedy - 416 U.S. 134 (1974)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 30 October 2013.
2. "Arnett v. Kennedy - 416 U.S. 134 (1974)". Justia: US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved 30 October 2013.