The case of Stephen C. Stem, Plaintiff–Appellant v. Ruben Gomez and the City of Hearne, Texas, Defendants–Appellees (813 F.3d 205) heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on February 8, 2016, addresses significant issues related to employment termination of police officers under Texas law. Stephen Stem, a former police officer, was terminated by the Hearne City Council without prior notice or a hearing, prompting him to file a lawsuit alleging violations of state law and constitutional due process rights. This commentary delves into the court's comprehensive analysis of whether Texas Government Code §614.023 confers a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment for peace officers, thereby requiring due process before termination.

In this judgment, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld part of the district court's dismissal while reversing and remanding other aspects. The core issue revolved around whether Texas Government Code §614.023 creates a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment for police officers that necessitates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment upon termination. The district court had previously dismissed Stem's claims for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction, and denied his motion to amend. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Section 1983 claim, reversed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding Stem's motion to amend his complaint.

The judgment extensively references crucial precedents that shape the understanding of constitutional due process and property interests in employment. Key cases include:

• Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen (681 F.3d 215, 5th Cir. 2012) – Discussed standards for dismissing claims for failure to state a claim.
• Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (550 U.S. 544, 2007) – Established the "plausibility" standard for complaints.
• Monell v. Department of Social Services (436 U.S. 658, 1978) – Clarified when local governments can be sued under Section 1983.
• BOARD OF REGENTS v. ROTH (408 U.S. 564, 1972) – Defined what constitutes a "property interest" under the Due Process Clause.
• HENDERSON v. SOTELO (761 F.2d 1093, 5th Cir. 1985) – Held that procedural requirements alone do not create a property interest.

The court's legal reasoning centered on whether Texas Government Code §614.023 establishes a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment for police officers, thus triggering due process protections upon termination.

**Property Interest Defined:** The court clarified that a property interest, as per BOARD OF REGENTS v. ROTH, requires a legitimate entitlement based on an independent source like state law, contract, or policy, which must be concrete and objective.

**Application to §614.023:** The statute outlines procedural requirements for disciplinary actions but does not explicitly confer a guaranteed right to continued employment. The legislative history indicated that intent was not to eliminate at-will employment, as the term "sufficient evidence" was removed, granting discretion to local departments in determining misconduct.

**Comparative Analysis:** Citing HENDERSON v. SOTELO, the court reasoned that mere procedural safeguards do not equate to a substantive property interest unless they significantly constrain the employer's discretion in termination.

**Jurisdictional Considerations:** The court examined whether the district court erred in dismissing claims for lack of jurisdiction, ultimately finding that federal jurisdiction exists under 42 U.S.C. §1983 as long as a plausible claim is made, regardless of the property interest's existence.

This judgment underscores the limited scope of statutory procedural protections in creating constitutionally enforceable rights in employment. For peace officers and other public employees in Texas, it signifies that unless state law explicitly provides a non-at-will employment structure, procedural compliance alone may not safeguard against arbitrary termination. This decision may limit the avenues for alleging due process violations in employment termination cases, emphasizing the necessity for clear statutory or contractual rights to continue employment.

Additionally, the reversal regarding jurisdiction prompts courts to more carefully consider jurisdictional challenges, ensuring that valid claims are not prematurely dismissed.

Property Interest

A "property interest" in legal terms refers to a legitimate claim or entitlement that is recognized under law, which grants an individual certain protections from government actions. In employment, it typically means having a secured right to maintain one's job unless there is just cause for termination.

Section 1983

42 U.S.C. §1983 is a federal statute that allows individuals to sue in federal court when their constitutional rights have been violated by someone acting under the color of state law. It is a crucial tool for enforcing civil rights.

Due Process

Due process is a constitutional guarantee that a person will receive fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a protection against the arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government.

At-Will Employment

At-will employment is a type of employment relationship where either the employer or the employee can terminate the relationship at any time, for any lawful reason, without prior notice.

The Fifth Circuit's decision in Stem v. Gomez reinforces the principle that procedural provisions within employment statutes, such as Texas Government Code §614.023, do not inherently create constitutionally protected property interests in continued employment. As a result, without explicit statutory or contractual guarantees, peace officers in Texas remain classified as at-will employees, thereby limiting their ability to invoke due process protections upon termination. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future cases involving employment terminations of public officials and highlights the critical distinction between procedural compliance and the establishment of substantive employment rights.