Due Process-Employment 

Listen to this article

WI Court of Supreme Court

Case Name: Erik A. Andrade v. City of Milwaukee Board of Fire and Police Commissioners

Case No.: 2020AP000333

Officials: Hagedorn, J.

Focus: Due Process-Employment

The case primarily focused on the procedural aspects of Andrade’s dismissal following controversial social media posts that he made, which garnered significant public and legal attention.

The core issue was whether the termination process violated Andrade’s 14^th Amendment due process rights. Andrade argued that his dismissal was procedurally deficient because he was not adequately informed about the specific reasons for his termination, particularly that his social media conduct would preclude his effectiveness as a witness in court, a critical aspect of his policing duties. This omission, he claimed, did not afford him a fair opportunity to defend himself or address the concerns before being terminated.

The Supreme Court, in its majority opinion, disagreed with Andrade’s arguments. The Court held that the pre-termination procedures met constitutional due process requirements as defined by the landmark decision in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill. According to the Court, due process does not necessitate a detailed explanation of all factors contributing to a disciplinary decision prior to termination. Instead, it requires notice of the charges, an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an opportunity for the employee to respond. In Andrade’s case, he was informed about the investigation into his social media posts, the specific department policies he was alleged to have violated, and was given opportunities to explain his actions during the internal investigation process.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the extensive post-termination procedures provided additional layers of review and opportunities for Andrade to challenge the decision. These included a full administrative hearing and subsequent judicial reviews, which collectively satisfied the due process requirements by allowing Andrade substantial opportunities to contest the charges and the justification for his dismissal.

Additionally, the Court addressed Andrade’s contention regarding compliance with Wisconsin Statute § 62.50(13), which requires a detailed complaint from the chief of police stating the reasons for an officer’s discharge. The Court found that the procedural requirements were met as the chief’s complaint appropriately listed the policies violated and referenced the problematic Facebook posts that formed the basis for these violations.

Affirmed

Decided 04/30/24

Full Text