• Facets (new session)
• Description
• Metadata
• Settings
  • Rule: ActivityStreamsMapasEquivalentb3sb3sifpdbprdf-labelfacetshttp://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/dbpedia#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/opencyc#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/umbel#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/yago#http://dbpedia.org/schema/property_rules#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/SUMO#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/WordNet#http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ldpoplwebskos-transurn:det:rdf:labelvirtrdf-labelvirtrdf-urlNone
    
  • Inverse Functional Properties: Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects
  • "Same As": Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects (recommended) Apply to subjects, objects and predicates (not recommended on big datasets) Apply to predicates only (special use cases only)

About: Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : umbel-rc:Event, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)

Type: ThingcaseLegal Caseunit of workLegal caseyago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesyago:Abstraction100002137yago:Case107308889yago:Event100029378yago:Happening107283608yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntitySupreme Court of the United States caseumbel-rc:Event New Facet based on Instances of this Class

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that: * certain public-sector employees can have a property interest in their employment, per Constitutional Due Process. See Board of Regents v. Roth * this property right entails a right to "some kind of hearing" before being terminated—a right to oral or written notice of charges against them, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present their sides of the story. * thus, the pretermination hearing should be an initial check against mistaken decisions—not a full evidentiary hearing, but essentially a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true and support the propo