AAC F A M I L Y A N D F R I E N D S » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »
How to handle non-grievable hearing requests
hen an employee presents a request for a hearing, we (the AAC’s Risk Management Fund attor- neys) study it to decide if it presents a grievable claim — an allegation that, if true, would con- stitute a violation of the constitution or the law or public policy. If not, we draft a response telling the employee that the request for a hearing is being denied without prejudice to making a new request. We continue this dialogue until the problem is solved.
W
WHY THE MODEL POLICY? Te model policy is the result of our 25+ years of city and county employment litigation expe- rience. Being a public employer, a county is required to follow the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment: procedural due process (notice, pre-deprivation hearing, and impartial tribunal to hear both sides of the story), substantive due process (legitimate governmental reason), and equal protection of the law (no arbi- trary differences in treatment). Te model employment policy is necessarily complicated. We
are open to any ideas that will make it a simpler policy/process. It has, however, been carefully drafted to incorporate the require- ments of procedural due process (pre-deprivation hearing), sub- stantive due process (legitimate governmental reason), and equal protection of the law (no arbitrary differences in treatment).
NO CHARGE HELP AVAILABLE TO AACRMF MEM-
BERS: We handle county employee discipline and dismissal mat- ters weekly. Te AACRMF has authorized us to act, with no charge to the county, to handle any employment matter for any member county. (If any hearing is requested at any stage of the problem- solving process, the county pays the standard $500 AACRMF de- ductible. Tat’s it; there is no other charge to the county.) Since we represent 46 counties through the AACRMF, and we handle employee discipline and dismissal matters weekly, we have applied the model employment policy to hundreds of situations. Usually, we draft the Notice of Employment Action, stating why the elected official’s reasons are in accord with the Fourteenth Amendment (rationally related to a legitimate governmental ob- jective, without any arbitrary differences in treatment). Te No- tice will offer the affected employee the right to ask for a hearing and will state that the decision to remove or reduce pay or position will not become final until after the hearing process is concluded. Tis is for two reasons: 1) it is required by the Fourteenth
Amendment and 2) it is an effective, money-saving process for protecting the county from later claims.
PRE-DEPRIVATION HEAR- ING IS BOTH REQUIRED AND HELPFUL: Te procedural due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require a pre- deprivation hearing. Tat is why pay is continued until the hearing is held or re-scheduled at the employee’s request. Paying the employee until the hearing (usually a few days) is simply the cost of following the requirements of procedural due process. It is cheap compared to the cost of litigation. (Te 14- day outside limit stated in the model policy is there because one county waited 11 months to make a decision and was later sued for 11 month of pre-deprivation pay. We don’t want to fight that fight again.) We do not legalistically apply the three-day request and other requirements. We will honor (give a substantive response to) any hearing request made at any time. Our objective is to utilize dialogue to find out and solve any potential (real) liability problems. If there is no potential liability problem, the request for hearing is denied.
Mike Rainwater Risk Management Legal Counsel
SOLVE PROBLEM NOW ... OR LATER? It is easy for any
employee to claim, after-the-fact, that the real motivation for the county official’s decision was the deprivation of a protected liberty right (e.g., freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom to participate in the political process, race, color, creed, gender, national origin, orientation, etc.). All employees — including all at-will employees — have liberty rights protected by the Consti- tution. Te hearing process benefits the employer by forcing the employee to articulate any claimed liberty-interest-deprivation. Otherwise the employee has no duty to speak and can choose to speak in a lawsuit that can be filed any time in the next three years.
(Mike Rainwater, a regular contributor to County Lines and lead
attorney for AAC Risk Management, is principal shareholder of Rain- water, Holt, and Sexton, P.A., a state-wide personal injury and dis- ability law firm. Mr. Rainwater has been a lawyer for over 30 years, is a former deputy prosecuting attorney, and has defended city and county officials for over 25 years.)
www.arcounties.org 14 COUNTY LINES, SPRING 2014
County Law Update
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52