Constitutional Law: Ross v. Clayton County

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!

Table of Contents

Type of Action
Facts of Case
Contentions of the Parties
Issue
Decision
Reasoning
Rule of Law
Reference

Type of Action

Civil suit claiming violation of the First Amendment right and its constituent; freedom of Association.

Civil suit alleging violation of Fifth Amendment and its element; right to procedural due process.

Facts of Case

A correctional officer (Ross) hired on twelve months of work tests (Probationary) by the Clayton County in February 1992, accommodated his brother Andre Ross into his apartment in October 1992 against the correctional department’s policy. Andre Ross was on probation for failing to pay for child support by the time he was visiting his brother (Reuters, 2010). Correctional officers were prohibited from hosting, associating, or engaging in any form of business transaction with probationers by a Georgia Department of Corrections regulation. The correctional officers were to seek special permission from the head of the department before associating with active probationers.

Further accusations for abduction and rape were hurled at Andre during his stay at Ross’s apartment. Upon the police’s visit at Ross’s house to conduct investigations in response to the victim’s 911 call Ross turned out to be so confrontational besides being belligerent to the officers which led to uncovering of the Andres stay in Ross’s house (Reuters, 2010). Ross received a summon notice requiring him to meet warden camp and other supervisors.

Ross was consequently demoted to a lower-ranking position of “Correctional Officer II” from his current position of a “Sergeant” (Reuters, 2010). Additionally, he also had to bear a salary loss of approximately $3000 of his income per annum. Ross went ahead and filed litigation against Clayton County Georgia on October 15, 1993, claiming infringement of First Amendment rights and Fifth Amendment rights of freedom of association and procedural due process respectively (Reuters, 2010).

Contentions of the Parties

Ross claimed that the act of demoting him breached his First Amendment right of freedom of association considering that it denied him an opportunity to stay with his brother who happened to be a probationer (Reuters, 2010). Secondly, Ross also alleged that demotion violated his right to procedural due process.

Clayton County Georgia claimed that Ross’s right to procedural due process was not violated owing to the fact that he was simply a probationary employee and therefore he lacked property interests in their employment entrusted to fully employee officers. Additionally, Clayton County Georgia further claimed that demotion did not deprive Ross of his right of association considering the essence of Pickering balance, which seeks to limit correctional officers’ association with probationers without special permission.

Issue

Is the demotion of Ross considered a violation of Ross’s freedom of association, and if it happens to be true then Ross’s First Amendment rights have been breached. Additionally, does the demotion affects the Ross’s right to procedural due process and if it does then this means that Ross’s Fifth amendment rights have been violated.

Decision

The court held:

Ross’s right to procedural due process was not violated considering that his rank does not allow him to claa im property interest in the employment.
Ross’s First Amendment right of freedom of association was not violated by demotion and therefor his state law claims lacked merit (Reuters, 2010).

Reasoning

The court found out that Ross lack a property interest in his rank in the employment thus his Fifth Amendment right of procedural due process was not violated. Additionally ,the fact that he was not entitled to the property interest by his rank does not have a base on the First Amendment too.

The court also realized that the Pickering balance was essential to the Georgia Department of Corrections than to Ross’s association right considering that correctional officers were expected to seek special permission before associating with probationers (Reuters, 2010). It is undoubtedly that Ross waived this rule and rather hosted his brother in his apartment without following the regulations thus his First Amendment rights were not contravened as per the Pickering balance.

Rule of Law

From the case, one can easily establish that First amendment right of association is only considered violated only when a plaintiff can prove that the defendant prevented him from coming together to protect common goal.

It is also evident from the case that an individual’s Fifth Amendment rights of procedural due process is only considered violated only when a plaintiff proves ownership of specific rights for example right to property, life, and or liberty by the constitution but the defendant is depriving him/her these rights without following the legally laid down processes.

Reference

Reuters, T. (2010). Ross v. Clayton County 173, F. 3d 1305 (11th Cir. 1999). No Claim to Orig. US Gov.