Loudermill Rights Definition
Loudermill rights provide a public sector employee the right to a hearing or opportunity to contest the reasons for involuntary termination (firing).
A Little More on Louderhill Rights
Loudermill rights are also known as “Loudermill hearing”. The term has been in practice since 1985 after the hearing conducted by the Supreme court of the United States of America. The court hearing was concerned with employees right of response against the allegations made by the employer regarding the performance of the employee resulting in termination. The case was titled as Education Board of Cleveland vs. Loudermill. The decision includes that employees from the public sector are allowed a “right of response” with regard to their jobs termination. The decision sheds light on certain principals and due process rights related to an employee’s removal. Ultimately, the employee has the full right and opportunity to express his opinion and request clarification of the allegations leading to dismissal. Thus Loudermill rights provide the opportunity to hear opinions from both the parties.
As it is evident that Loudermill rights provide opportunities for self-defense against employer’s sudden decision of job termination of employees. The US Supreme Court decision lays foundations about the whole process of termination and gives full rights to the affected employee to see if all the due processes regarding job termination have been practiced.
Loudermill rights specify that employees should be given a written as well as oral notice before they are terminated from their job. This process is called pre-termination hearing that enables an employee to present logical prooves and response to defend his case successfully. The documentary notice is also known as Loudermill letter. With Loudermill rights, the employee is able to highlight any mistakes, can point out any prejudices if they are present in the employer’s decision. The hearing process is considered in the context of specific departmental disciplines where the dispute arises. The Supreme court hearing determines that the use of Loudermill rights is essential because certain prejudice and disputes are involved in employees removal that needs to be explained. There are certain requirements concerning the Loudermill hearing that are known as pre-termination hearing and post-termination hearing. During the process of post-termination hearing, the significance of pre-termination hearing reduces. However, employees use both types of hearings to get the maximum benefits and compensations if they are agreed between the employer and the employee. However, in most cases, the dispute is settled in pre-termination hearing. Such hearings provide chances to employers to check if the decision was made mistakenly and job termination was on solid grounds. The decree of US Supreme court also includes that employers must provide a face-to-face pre-termination opportunity of hearing either with the help of a supervisor or any management member so that any constitutional violation does not occur. The court ruling suggests that terminated employee does not have the right to legal action if he is unable to produce any evidence in a pre-termination hearing.
References for Laudermill Rights
Academic Research on Loudermill rights
Federal Pre-Termination Rights for State Employees: Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, Foster, E. K. (1985). U. Cin. L. Rev., 54, 1069. The paper describes the use of the federal pre-termination right of hearing for public employees in a case appeared in the US Supreme court known as Cleveland Board of Education vs. Loudermill.
Hiding Behind the Constitution: The Supreme Court and Procedural Due Process in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, Jaff, J. (1984). Akron L. Rev., 18, 631. This paper throws light on the certain aspects of an employee’s termination from job and employers seeking refuge behind the constitution to avoid any legal hearing. The US Supreme court defines the due process in the context of Loudermill right.
The curious evolution of immigration law: procedural surrogates for substantive constitutional rights, Motomura, H. (1992). T. Immigr. & Nat’lity L. Rev., 14, 3. The writer elaborates on careful evolution of immigration laws and search of various processes for alternative rights to safeguard employees from job termination.
Work Place Rights of Public Employees in Delaware, The, Conner, M. H. (1992). Del. Law., 10, 44. The author explores workplace rights for public employees in Delaware and how these rights can be implemented successfully to provide employee friendly working atmosphere.
Union Waiver of Public Employees’ Due Process Rights, Wallace, R. (1986). Indus. Rel. LJ, 8, 583. The research examines the due process to secure employee job rights. It explains whether a labour union has the capacity to waive or alter employee rights in hearing processes or not.
… Public Employee Entitled to Pre-Termination Hearing Regardless of Statutory Procedures for Dismissal: Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 105 S. Ct. 1487 …, Gamso, J. M. (1986). Tenured (1985). Tex. Tech L. Rev., 17, 255. The author, in this review paper, comprehensively investigates pre-termination hearing rights of public employees and the procedure of application for the dismissal. The discussion focuses on the Supreme court’s ruling in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill.
Bias and the Loudermill Hearing: Due Process or Lip Service to Federal Law, Maslan Jr, R. F. (1988). Bias and the Loudermill Hearing: Due Process or Lip Service to Federal Law. Fordham L. Rev., 57, 1093. The research investigates the existence of bias in employee termination decisions in the context of Loudermill hearing. The writer further explores if Federal law provides any practical help to affectees or just lip service.
The Evolution of Federal Employee Appeal Rights, Mayor, B. (1991). Fed. Cir. BJ, 1, 37. The author explores step by step emergence and evolution of US Federal laws in relation to federal employees’ appeal rights against job termination and how these rights help to secure job prospect.
How wrong are employees about their rights, and why does it matter, Estlund, C. L. (2002). NYUL Rev., 77, 6. This paper presents a thorough insight that how employees have wrong concepts about their rights and how they misuse legal assistance. The paper critically reviews how such actions matter.
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill: Procedural Due Process Protection for Public Employees, Howard Jr, L. B. (1986). Ohio St. LJ, 47, 1115. This paper is standardized and complete research that presents the outcome of a comparison between the Cleveland Board of Education and Loudermill. It discusses the implementation of the due process to safeguard public employee termination.
Due Process, Judicial Review, and the Rights of the Individual, Re, E. D. (1991). Clev. St. L. Rev., 39, 1. In this paper, the writer shares his investigations about judicial procedures in the context of employment terminations and employee’s right to the hearing. The paper shows how the legal framework can help an individual employee to protect his employment following the legal model.