A state statute provides a remedy for victims of employment discrimination. The statute requires complainants to bring charges before the state's fair employment commission within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practices. The commission then has 120 days to convene a fact-finding conference to obtain evidence, ascertain the parties' positions, and explore settlement possibilities. An employee was discharged from his job purportedly because of a physical handicap unrelated to his ability to perform his job. The employee filed a timely complaint, alleging unlawful termination of employment, as required by the statute. However, through inadvertence, the commission scheduled the fact-finding conference five days after the 120-day statutory period expired. At the conference, the employer moved that the charge be dismissed for lack of a timely conference. The commission denied the motion. The employer petitioned the state supreme court. The court held for the employer, stating that the failure to comply with the 120-day requirement deprived the commission of jurisdiction to consider the employee's charge. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the employee argues that his right to due process will be violated if the commission's error is allowed to extinguish his cause of action.
Which of the following best describes the viability of the employee's due process claim?
response - correct
Press Enter or Space to submit the answerAThe claim fails, because the employee had no protected property interest in his job.BThe claim fails, because the state legislature, having conferred on claimants a remedy for claims of unfair employment practices, has the prerogative to establish limiting procedures for such claims.CorrectCThe claim succeeds, because the employee had a protected property interest in the remedy.DThe claim succeeds, because of the fundamental unfairness of leaving the employee without a remedy.A state statute provides a remedy for victims of employment discrimination. The statute requires complainants to bring charges before the state's fair employment commission within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practices. The commission then has 120 days to convene a fact-finding conference to obtain evidence, ascertain the parties' positions, and explore settlement possibilities. An employee was discharged from his job purportedly because of a physical handicap unrelated to his ability to perform his job. The employee filed a timely complaint, alleging unlawful termination of employment, as required by the statute. However, through inadvertence, the commission scheduled the fact-finding conference five days after the 120-day statutory period expired. At the conference, the employer moved that the charge be dismissed for lack of a timely conference. The commission denied the motion. The employer petitioned the state supreme court. The court held for the employer, stating that the failure to comply with the 120-day requirement deprived the commission of jurisdiction to consider the employee's charge. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the employee argues that his right to due process will be violated if the commission's error is allowed to extinguish his cause of action.
Which of the following best describes the viability of the employee's due process claim?
A. The claim fails, because the employee had no protected property interest in his job.
B. The claim fails, because the state legislature, having conferred on claimants a remedy for claims of unfair employment practices, has the prerogative to establish limiting procedures for such claims.
C. The claim succeeds, because the employee had a protected property interest in the remedy.
D. The claim succeeds, because of the fundamental unfairness of leaving the employee without a remedy.