Although decided in 1975, Skelly v. State Personnel Board remains one of the most important California Supreme Court decisions governing discipline of public employees. The case established baseline constitutional due process requirements that apply when a public employer seeks to impose serious discipline on an employee who has a protected property interest in continued employment. Nearly fifty years later, Skelly continues to shape disciplinary procedures across California’s public sector and remains a cornerstone of public employment law.
In Skelly, the California Supreme Court considered whether a permanent civil service employee could be terminated without receiving notice of the proposed discipline or an opportunity to respond before the termination became effective. The employee had been dismissed for alleged misconduct and later received a post-termination evidentiary hearing before the State Personnel Board. The Court held that post-disciplinary remedies alone were insufficient to satisfy constitutional due process where an employee has a vested right to continued employment.
The Court’s analysis was grounded in federal constitutional principles rather than purely state-law concepts. By the early 1970s, the United States Supreme Court had made clear that due process protections apply when the government deprives an individual of a protected property interest. In Board of Regents v. Roth and Perry v. Sindermann, the Court held that such a property interest exists when rules, policies, or mutually explicit understandings create a legitimate claim of entitlement, rather than a mere expectation. Applying those principles, the California Supreme Court in Skelly recognized that permanent public employees who may be discharged only for cause possess a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment.
The Court also drew from federal due process cases addressing the timing of procedural protections. In Goldberg v. Kelly, the United States Supreme Court held that welfare benefits could not be terminated without notice and an opportunity to be heard before the deprivation occurred. Although Goldberg did not involve employment, it established the broader principle that due process generally requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard before, not merely after, the loss of an important property interest. The California Supreme Court relied on that reasoning to reject the notion that post-termination hearings alone could satisfy due process for public employees.
Federal employment cases further informed the Court’s analysis. In Arnett v. Kennedy, decided one year before Skelly, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that federal civil service employees protected by for-cause standards have a constitutionally protected property interest in their positions. Although Arnett produced no single majority opinion and left unresolved questions about the precise scope of pre-termination process required, it reinforced the principle that public employment can implicate due process protections. Against that backdrop, the California Supreme Court concluded that some form of pre-disciplinary process was constitutionally required for California public employees.
From Skelly emerged what are now commonly referred to as “Skelly rights.” Before imposing termination, demotion, or suspension without pay, a public employer must provide notice of the proposed disciplinary action, the reasons for the proposed discipline, copies of the materials upon which the action is based, and an opportunity for the employee to respond. The response may be written or oral and does not need to resemble a full evidentiary hearing. Its purpose is to allow the employee to present their side of the story and to reduce the risk of arbitrary or mistaken decisions.
The Court also clarified the relationship between pre-disciplinary and post-disciplinary proceedings. While a limited pre-disciplinary opportunity to respond is constitutionally required, a more formal evidentiary hearing may occur after discipline is imposed. In Skelly’s case, the post-termination hearing before the State Personnel Board served that function. However, because no meaningful pre-termination safeguards had been provided, the dismissal was procedurally defective. As a remedy, the Court ordered reinstatement with back pay limited to the period between the termination and the eventual hearing, illustrating that procedural violations can carry tangible consequences even where misconduct is later substantiated.
In later years, the United States Supreme Court confirmed this framework in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, holding that public employees with for-cause protections are entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before termination. Notably, Loudermill was decided a decade after Skelly, meaning that California had already adopted pre-disciplinary due process protections consistent with federal constitutional principles. In that sense, Skelly anticipated rather than followed later federal doctrine.
Over time, Skelly has been applied broadly throughout California’s public sector, including state agencies, charter cities, counties, special districts, and public educational institutions. Although specific procedures may vary depending on governing statutes, civil service rules, memoranda of understanding, or personnel policies, the constitutional baseline established in Skelly remains constant. Where a public employee has a protected property interest in their position, some form of pre-disciplinary notice and opportunity to respond is required.
Revisiting Skelly remains important because both public employees facing discipline and public officials responsible for imposing it must understand and appreciate the nature, timing, and scope of the procedural and substantive due process requirements that apply when constitutionally protected property interests in continued employment are at stake. The decision underscores that procedural fairness is not a mere formality, but a constitutional safeguard designed to promote accuracy, transparency, and legitimacy in public employment decisions.
Nearly five decades after it was decided, Skelly v. State Personnel Board continues to stand as a foundational statement of due process rights for California public employees, firmly rooted in both state and federal constitutional law.