The case of James E. Gilbert, President, East Stroudsburg University, et al. v. Richard Homar (1996) revolved around the issue of due process rights for public employees facing disciplinary action or termination from their jobs. Richard Homar was a campus police officer at East Stroudsburg University who was suspended without pay after being arrested on drug charges that were later dropped. He sued the university and its officials claiming his constitutional right to due process had been violated because he wasn't given an opportunity to explain or defend himself before being disciplined. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the university stating that government employees do not have absolute entitlements to their positions and can be terminated if they fail to meet legitimate requirements set by employers such as maintaining certain standards of conduct expected in law enforcement roles like Homar's position as a campus police officer.

In the dissenting opinion for Gilbert v. Homar, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately protect public employees from arbitrary or mistaken suspensions without pay. He contended that due process requires a pre-suspension hearing unless there is an urgent need to remove an employee immediately, and in this case, no such urgency existed. The university could have provided Homar with a brief opportunity to explain his side of the story before deciding on suspension without pay but chose not to do so. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that post-suspension hearings were sufficient protection against wrongful deprivation of property rights as they did not account for potential financial hardship caused by immediate loss of income. In essence, Stevens believed that public employees should be given more procedural protections when facing punitive measures like unpaid suspessions.