Whether a municipal employer's coerced resignation of an employee with a protected property interest in continued employment requires pre-deprivation due process under Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)

QUESTION PRESENTED Respondent, the City of New York (the “City”), issued an ultimatum to these four highly distinguished who were Deputy Chiefs or Inspectors for the NYPD, demanding that they immediately resign or that they would be immediately demoted, face unspecified charges, and then ultimately be terminated. Though the had an undisputed property interest in their jobs, the ultimatum to resign was issued without the City providing any pre-deprivation process, including notification of charges, identification of witnesses and evidence, and a minimal opportunity to be heard. Under the threat of the loss of significant retirement benefits if they were demoted and terminated, each succumbed to the forces exerted by the City and resigned. Shortly thereafter, an impartial hearing officer ruled that the resignations were coerced and were not voluntary, thereby constituting a constructive discharge. Eight Circuit Courts have held or suggested that coerced discharges of employees with property rights in continued employment must be afforded at least minimal due process. Below, the Second Circuit diverged from these other Circuits and held that coerced resignations do not require pre-deprivation due process because New York’s Article 78 procedures provide adequate post-deprivation process. ii The question presented is: 1. Whether a municipal employer’s coerced resignation of an employee with a protected property interest in continued employment requires pre-deprivation due process under Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).