Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Keizertimes. (Salem, Or.) 1979-current | View Entire Issue (April 9, 2021)
PAGE A8, KEIZERTIMES, APRIL 9, 2021 RESIGN: Council cites due process violations for severance Continued from page 1 one year’s worth of health insurance cov- erage for him and his family as part of a separation agreement. Health insurance will end if Eppley fi nds new employment. Keizertimes has asked for an estimate of what it will pay out to Eppley but did not receive an answer by press time. The pay- ment may top six fi gures. Mayor Cathy Clark was given authority to sign the fi nal documents independent of council approval. Clark was moved to emotion reading a state- ment accepting Eppley’s resignation. Clark’s statement implied that Eppley’s “due process rights might have been violated” when a portion of his inci- dent report was published. Eppley’s resignation comes in the wake of discharging a fi rearm in his offi ce in early March. brainfood crossword answers pg A6 DISCHARGED Reverbs of shot at city hall How due process applies to public employees By ERIC A. HOWALD Of the Keizertimes As the Keizer City Council announced accepting former city manager Chris Eppley’s resignation, it also announced a severance package was being off ered because Eppley’s “due process rights may have been violated.” The council did not give a specifi c rea- son for believing Eppley’s rights had been violated, but it begs the question, “What are a public employee’s due process rights?” The answer is derived from the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. No person “shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” states the Fifth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment guaran- tees, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court deter- mined that the property protections extended to public employees in rul- ing that an Ohio statue clearly granted “civil servants property rights to their employment.” The case is known as Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, and the due process rights relating to public employ- ees are now known as Loudermill rights. Later, those rights developed into what is commonly called a Loudermill hearing. According to the Oregon Supreme Court, Loudermill hearings require that public employers provide employees faced with termination and other conse- quences be provided with: • A written notice of the charges. • A notice of the kinds of sanctions being considered. • An informal opportunity for the employee to refute the charges orally or in writing. A document produced by the League of Oregon Cities, outlines some of the spe- cifi c impact on Oregon’s public employers. “According to the courts, whether a public employee has a property interest in their employment depends on whether that employee has a legitimate expecta- tion of continued employment,” a FAQ on the organization’s website states. “Oregon courts agree that due process does not require a full evidentiary hearing.” It is possible for an employee to relin- quish Loudermill rights and release the city from liability as part of a settlement regarding the termination of employment.
