Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
The Lloyd-La Follette Act, 5 U.S.C.S. § 7501, in at once conferring upon nonprobationary federal employees the right not to be discharged except for cause and prescribing the procedural means by which that right was to be protected, does not create an expectancy of job retention in those employees requiring procedural protection under the Due Process Clause beyond that afforded by the statute and related agency regulations.
Appellee, a federal civil service employee in the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), was removed from federal service pursuant to the Lloyd-La Follette Act (Act), 5 U.S.C.S. § 7501, after he was found to have recklessly made statements that an officer of the OEO had been involved in bribes. Appellee was advised of his rights under regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission (Commission) and the OEO on how he could reply to the charges and appeal any subsequent dismissal to the Commission or OEO. Appellee filed suit upon the claim that the discharge procedures authorized by the Act had denied him and others due process of law. The district court granted judgment in favor of the appellee. Appellant, the director of the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), sought review of the decision.
Did the discharge procedures authorized by the Lloyd-La Follette Act deny appellee of the due process of law?
The court reversed the decision of the district court, holding that the Lloyd-La Follette Act had not created an expectancy of job retention requiring procedural protection under the Due Process Clause. The Court also concluded that post-termination procedures provided by the Commission and the OEO adequately protected appellee's liberty interest in not being wrongfully stigmatized by untrue administrative charges. Finally, the Court held the Act was not impermissibly vague or overbroad in its regulation of federal employee speech.