A number of deputy sheriffs who were suspended without pay after being charged with felonies claimed that their suspensions violated due process. Such deputies were not entitled to pre-suspension procedural due process hearings, but were entitled to post-suspension hearings. A federal appeals court ruled that some deputies who received post-suspension hearings presented viable claims that the hearings' outcomes were decided in advance. The appeals court also held that a county policy under which such deputies who decided to retire were denied hearings was a violation of due process. Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles, #08-56283, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 16801 (9th Cir.).
     A suspension with full pay does not trigger due process protections unless the suspension imposes a substantial indirect economic effect on the employee. Palka v. Shelton, #08-4245, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20708 (7th Cir.).
     Federal Merit Board holds that the DHS may not indefinitely suspend an employee merely because it has a pending investigation into allegations regarding her conduct. The appellant, an ICE Deportation Officer, had been arrested for battery while off-duty. Hodge v. Dept. of Homeland Security, #DA-0752-09-0457-I-1, 2010 MSPB 190, 2010 MSPB Lexis 5401.
     A federal agency may not indefinitely suspend, without pay, a law enforcement officer solely because it is investigating allegations of misconduct. Indefinite suspensions are permissible only under three limited circumstances: (1) When the agency has reasonable cause to believe an employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment could be imposed - pending the outcome of the criminal proceeding or any subsequent agency action following the conclusion of the criminal process; (2) When the agency has legitimate concerns that an employee's medical condition makes his continued presence in the workplace dangerous or inappropriate - pending a determination that the employee is fit for duty; (3) When an employee's access to classified information has been suspended and the employee must have such access to perform his job - pending a final determination on the employee's access to classified information. Gonzalez v. Dept. Homeland Security, #NY-0752-09-0052-I-1, 2010 MSPB 132.
    A Boston police officer who was suspended for writing an e-mail comparing Harvard scholar Henry Gates to a “banana-eating jungle monkey” has filed a lawsuit claiming that the city violated his civil and due process rights. He seeks injunctive relief, compensation for emotional injuries and punitive damages. Justin Barrett v. City of Boston Police Dept., #1:2009cv11298 (D. Mass.).
     Third Circuit recognizes a due process claim for suspending a firefighter for having failed to complete training requirements before a hearing. After the news media reported his suspension, a hearing was held and he was found in compliance. He had a procedural due process interest in not being suspended without just cause. He also stated a claim for the stigma. Dee v. Bor. of Dunmore, #07-1720, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24494 (3rd Cir.).  
     Arbitrator finds that management did not violate the bargaining agreement when it suspended with full pay, a schoolteacher who was photographed when off-duty and without her knowledge, while simulating an act of fellatio on a mannequin, which was posted on the Internet. L'Anse Creuse Public Schools and Mich. Educ. Assn. NEA L-1, AAA #54-390-01602-07, 125 LA (BNA) 527 (Daniel, 2008).
     Arbitrator rules that a security contractor must pay six months back wages to an officer that was suspended without pay, following her arrest for DUI; she was not convicted. A contractor is liable for back pay, even if the wages cannot be collected from the client. Reinstatement without back pay is justified only when management has grounds, independent of an arrest, to suspend an employee. Wackenhut Corp. and Int. Union, Security, Police & Fire Professionals L-403, 124 LA (BNA) 1345, FMCS Case #060831/9295-3 (Kravit, 2008).
     In an indefinite suspension appeal by Bureau of Prisons officers, "merely informed the appellants that they were being investigated for criminal assault of an inmate without describing the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault, was insufficiently detailed to provide the appellants notice of the charges against them and, consequently, the agency denied the appellants a meaningful opportunity to be heard." Lamour v. Dept. of Justice, #NY-0752-06-0267-I-1, 2007 MSPB 185.
     Federal Merit Board overturns indefinite suspensions of Bureau of Prisons officers. Correctional officers "may be required to exert force against an inmate as part of their normal duties ...[and] may be punished for their failure to exert appropriate force when dictated by the circumstances." The agency "cannot meet its burden of establishing that suspending a correctional officer without pay during the course of such an investigation promotes the efficiency of the service where the agency has failed to establish any basis to believe that the employee's actions were contrary to the normal and proper execution of his duties." Lamour v. Dept. of Justice, #NY-0752-06-0267, 2007 MSPB 185.
     Arbitrator sets aside a ten-day prehearing suspension of a firefighter accused of a residency violation. Management failed to "make a proper investigation prior to suspending the Grievant, including interviewing the Grievant as to the suspension." The suspension was "a violation of the just cause principles." City of Massillon, Ohio and IAFF L-251, 123 LA (BNA) 1374, FMCS Case #071214/00686-8 (J. Fullmer, 2007).
     When criminal charges against a suspended employee are dismissed, the agency must either reinstate the employee with back pay or initiate disciplinary charges. Welch v. Dept. of Justice, #CH-0752-06-0015-X-1, 2007 MSPB 149 (MSPB 2007).
     Eighth Circuit finds that a public employee does not suffer an adverse employment action by being placed on paid administrative leave for 89 days while the department investigates potential wrongdoing on his part. Singletary v. Missouri Dept. of Corr., 8th Cir., #04-3505, 423 F.3d 886, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19761; 96 FEP Cases (BNA) 807 (8th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Federal and N.Y. appellate courts both reject a police officer's claim that he was suspended without adequate Due Process. Accused of having sex with a civilian while on duty, he received notice of the charges with dates and locations, references to applicable regulations, was able to respond to the allegations and had his lawyer present during the I-A interview. Munno v. Town of Orangetown, #03cv8650, 391 F.Supp.2d 263, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24232 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Munno v. Town of Orangetown, 2003-08081, 13 A.D.3d 538, 786 N.Y.S.2d 576, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 15836 (2004). [2006 FP Jan]
     Federal appeals court rejects a back pay claim for a police officer who was suspended and later fired for making over $52,000 in false overtime claims; the former officer is now collecting retirement benefits for his 21 years of service. Stachowski v. Town of Cicero, #04-2782, 425 F.3d 1075, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 22184 (7th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     A part-time police officer, who worked full time for another police dept. that had filed charges against him for misconduct, was not suspended, demoted, constructively discharged, or otherwise deprived of his property interest in his part-time employment when the police chief removed him from the duty list and subsequently declined to issue him new credentials, based on the charges that later led to his termination from his full time position. Dixon v. New Richmond, #02-3727, 334 F.3d 691, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 13430, 20 IER Cases (BNA) 212, (7th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     Appeals court concludes that an 8-month period between a suspension without pay and his subsequent reinstatement was not adequate to prevent liability for denying an officer a pre-deprivation hearing. McDonald v. City of Dayton, #18721, 2001 Ohio App. Lexis 5150, 18 IER Cases (BNA) 125 (Ohio App. 2d Dist. 2001).   [2002 FP Apr]
     Federal appeals court allows management to impose a short-term summary suspension, without pay, prior to a pretermination hearing. Wallin v. Minn. Dept. Corr., 153 F.3d 68, 8 A.D. Cases (BNA) 1012, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 20085, 1998 WL 477227 (8th Cir.). See also: Garraghty v. Jordan, 830 F.2d 1295, 1987 U.S. App. Lexis 13495 (4th Cir.); Boals v. Gray, 775 F.2d 686, 1985 U.S. App. Lexis 23742 (6th Cir.); Pesce v. J.S. Morton H.S., 830 F.2d 789, 1987 U.S. App. Lexis 13793 (7th Cir.); Bartlett v. Fisher, 972 F.2d 911/at 915, 1992 U.S. App. Lexis 18660 (8th Cir.). [1998 FP 172-3]
     Supreme Court allows an immediate unpaid suspension of a police officer who had been arrested on felony drug charges. Gilbert v. Homar, 1997 U.S. Lexis 3546, 117 S.Ct. 1807. [1997 FP 106-7]
     Federal appeals court upholds indefinite suspension of merit system employee facing felony charges. Pararas-Carayannis v. Dept. of Commerce, 9 F.3d 955 (Fed.Cir. 1993). [1994 FP 29]
     Civil service employees are not entitled to hearing before a 15-day suspension is imposed. Listenbee v. City of Milwaukee, 753 F.Supp. 780 (E.D.Wis. 1990). See also: Morton v. Beyer, 822 F.2d 364 (3rd Cir. 1987); McCoy v. Kamradt, 483 N.E.2d 544 (Ill.App. 1985); Hopkins v. Mayor of Wilmington, 600 F.Supp. 542 (D.Del. 1984); Bailey v. Kirk, 777 F.2d 567 [at 574] (10th Cir. 1985). [1992 FP 29]
     Federal court strikes down “emergency suspension” procedure that did not provide for a pre- or postsuspension hearing. Moore v. Martin, 764 F.Supp. 1298 (N.D.Ill. 1991). [1992 FP 125]
     Federal prison improperly placed two correctional officers on "home duty status" with full pay while it investigated charges of inmate abuse and subsequently dropped. Although nonpunitive, they were denied overtime and pay differentials they would have earned on their normal schedules. Fed. Bur. of Prisons and AFGE L-919, 97 LA (BNA) 763, FMCS #91/18056 (Pelofsky, 1991). {N/R}
     Warden who placed employee on 10-day administrative leave while she was subject of investigation improperly required her to remain at home during work hours unless she requested annual leave. Federal regulation defines administrative leave as relieving employee of active duty and effect the restrictions placed her in another duty location. Fed. Bur. of Prisons and AFGE L-2441, 92 LA (BNA) 120, FMCS #88/24792 (Zobrak, 1988). {N/R}
     Although it violated internal regulations, it was not a crime for a suspended police officer to carry a concealed weapon and a duplicate police badge. People v. Epperson, 519 N.Y.S.2d 991, 137 Misc. 2d 146 (1987).
     Federal appeals court refuses injunction against prehearing suspensions without pay; adequate legal remedy available. Morton v. Beyer, 822 F.2d 364 (3rd Cir. 1987).
     Right to impose disciplinary suspensions implies it is without pay. Johnson v. Wells, 487 N.E.2d 466 (Ind.App. 1986).
     Illinois court upholds pre-trial suspensions without pay; 30-day maximum on penalty-suspensions not applicable. McCoy v. Kamradt, 483 N.E.2d 544 (Ill.App. 1985).
     A suspended police officer is obligated to conform to all applicable police regulations as a condition of his reinstatement. Bauer v. City of Chicago, 137 Ill.App.3d 228, 484 N.E.2d 422, 1985 Ill.App. Lexis 2530. {N/R}
     Prehearing suspension based on officer's arrest violated his due process rights. Hopkins v. Mayor of City of Wilmington, 600 F.Supp. 542 (D. Del. 1984).
     City not liable for pay of employee because suspension exceeded 30-day limit, when employee sought postponement. Valerio v. Scannell, 481 N.Y.S.2d 733 (A.D. 1984).
     Firefighter suspensions are for calendar days, not duty days. Airdo v. Vil. of Westchester, 420 N.E.2d 472 (Ill.App. 1981).
     Reinstatement and back pay prevents city from civil rights suit for improper procedures and defamation claim. Sparks v. City of Atlanta, 496 F.Supp. 770 (N.D. Ga. 1980). see also: Paul v. Davis, 96 S.Ct. 1155 (1976).
     Short term disciplinary suspension is not appealable under due process clause. State ex rel. Dunlap v. Cross, 403 N.E.2d 885 (Ind.App. 1980); Town of Speedway v. Nilson, 395 N.E.2d 1292 (Ind.App. 1979); Jenkins v. Hatcher, 163 Ind.App. 95, 322 N.E.2d 117 (1975).
     Pretrial suspension of officer accused of felony was a violation of veteran's protection laws. Kurtz v. City of Apple Valley, 290 N.W.2d 171 (Minn. 1980).
     Due process requires 24-hour notice of charges prior to suspension, Pennsylvania federal court rules. Bagby v. Beal, 455 F.Supp. 881 (M.D. Pa. 1978).
     Federal court upholds suspension of police without pay pending disciplinary hearing; arbitrary discrimination against law enforcement officers is a rational classification and constitutional. Baker v. Cawley, 459 F.Supp. 1301 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).
     Pre-suspension hearings not required in New Hampshire and Oklahoma. Nason v. New Hampshire Personnel Cmsn., 370 A.2d 634 (N.H. 1977); Umholtz v. City of Tulsa, 565 P.2d 15 (Okla. 1977).
     Seventh Circuit rules a firefighter must be given a hearing before a disciplinary suspension can be imposed. Muscare v. Quinn, 520 F.2d 1212 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. den. 96 S.Ct. 3183 (1976).
     Presuspension Hearings: Aycock v. Police Committee of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, 212 S.E. 22d 456 (Ga. App. 1975).
     See also: Disciplinary Hearings; Disciplinary Interrogations; Disciplinary Procedures; Disciplinary Punishment.