Board of Regents v. Roth

408 U.S. 564, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)


Roth was a professor hired on contract, with a specific date of termination of the contract. He was then informed he would not be rehired. Roth argued that his due process violations were violated because of a “failure of University officials to give him notice of any reason for nonretention and an opportunity for a hearing violated his right to procedural due process of law.”


Whether termination of a contract employee without reason or notice violates the due process clause.


No, termination upheld. Roth received notice via the contract that specifically outlined the date of termination. The state did not make any charge against him which would damage his reputation or good name (which would have changed the nature of the rulling). The intention of the 14th amendment is to provide safeguard to personal property from government intrusion. Government can proscribe property (welfare benefits for instance, which would justify a right to a hearing), but this property was temporary in nature and therefore the notice requirement was satisfied by the specified date of termination in the contract.

Comments are closed.