Bishop v. Wood

426 U.S. 341 (1976)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was employed by the city of Marion as a probationary policeman on June 9, 1969. After six months he became a permanent employee. He was dismissed on March 31, 1972. P claims that he had either an express or an implied right to continued employment. A city ordinance provides that a permanent employee may be discharged if he fails to perform work up to the standard of his classification, or if he is negligent, inefficient, or unfit to perform his duties. P contends that even though the ordinance does not expressly so provide, it should be read to prohibit discharge for any other reason, and therefore to confer tenure on all permanent employees. P contends that his period of service, together with his 'permanent' classification, gave him a sufficient expectancy of continued employment to constitute a protected property interest. P also claims the explanation for the discharge was false and he was deprived of an interest in liberty protected under the Due Process Clause. The district court applied D’s law on at-will employment, which did not require a hearing in the event of termination. It construed the ordinance such that D's determination of the adequacy of the grounds for discharge is not subject to judicial review; P was merely given certain procedural rights which the District Court found not to have been violated in this case. Because the employment was at will and no public disclosure was made for the reasons of termination it also concluded that P’s liberty interests were not violated. P appealed. P's claim that he has been deprived of liberty has two components. P contends that the reasons given for his discharge are so serious as to constitute a stigma that may severely damage his reputation in the community; in addition, he claims that those reasons were false. The appeals court affirmed and P appealed.