How have the courts treated the issue of due process in civil service employment termination cases?

In so holding, the high court rejected the contention made by one of the employing agencies that there was no due process violation because the [52 Cal.3d 1114] procedure used to discharge the two state employees met the requirements set forth in the Ohio statutory scheme. (Loudermill, supra, 470 U.S. at pp. 539-541, 105 S.Ct. at pp. 1491-1492.) Relying on the plurality opinion in Arnett v. Kennedy (1974) 416 U.S. 134, 152-154, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 1643-1644, 40 L.Ed.2d 15, the agency argued that due process was satisfied because the statutory scheme that created the vested right to civil service employment itself specified the manner for terminating that right.

The Loudermill court disagreed. Repudiating the plurality position in Arnett v. Kennedy, supra, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. 1633, the high court said: "The right to due process 'is conferred, not by legislative grace, but by constitutional guarantee. While the legislature may elect not to confer a property interest in [public] employment, it may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of such an interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural safeguards.' " (Loudermill, supra, 470 U.S. 532, 541, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1492-1493.)