concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the plurality’s conclusion that the Secretary’s procedures unconstitutionally deprived Roadway of procedural due process by failing to inform Roadway of the substance of the evidence supporting Hufstetler’s complaint. I disagree, however, with the plurality’s conclusion that the Secretary may order an indefinite preliminary reinstatement of discharged drivers without first affording employers an opportunity to present contrary testimony and evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.
Here Roadway contested the facts underlying the Secretary’s preliminary determination that there was reasonable cause to believe that the discharge of Hufstetler was retaliatory. When there are factual disputes that pertain to the validity of a deprivation, due process “require[s] more than a simple opportunity to argue or deny.” Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U. S. 532, 552 (1985) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Pre-deprivation procedures must provide “an initial check against mistaken decisions — essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges . . . are true and support the proposed action.” Id., at 545-546 (emphasis added). When, as here, the disputed question central to the deprivation is factual, and when, as here, there is no assurance that adequate final process will be prompt, predeprivation procedures are unreliable if they do not give the employer “an opportunity to test the strength of the evidence ‘by confronting and cross-examining adverse witnesses and by presenting witnesses on [its] own behalf.’” Id., at 548 (Marshall, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (quoting Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134, 214 (1974) (Marshall, J., dissenting)). Thus, employers such as Roadway are entitled to a fair opportunity to confront the *270accuser, to cross-examine witnesses, and to produce contrary records and testimony. *
The adequacy of predeprivation procedures is in significant part a function of the speed with which a postdeprivation or final determination is made. Previously the Court has recognized that “[t]he duration of any potentially wrongful deprivation of a property interest is an important factor in assessing the impact of official action on the private interest involved.” Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U. S. 1, 12 (1979). See also Loudermill, supra, at 547 (“At some point, a delay in the post-termination hearing would become a constitutional violation”). Were there any guarantee that the final hearing would occur promptly — within a few weeks, for example— the procedure endorsed by the Court might suffice. No such guarantee exists.
The statute itself requires that the final hearing be “expeditiously conducted.” 49 U. S. C. App. § 2305(c)(2)(A). But, as the plurality states, the Secretary’s implementing rules expressly allow a total delay of six months between the order of preliminary reinstatement, the holding of the postdeprivation hearing, the issuance of the administrative law judge’s opinion, and the final order of the Secretary. Ante, at 267-268. Moreover, the Secretary interprets the overly generous time requirements in the implementing rules as merely *271“directory in nature,” rather than mandatory. One of these regulatory time requirements — that “[u]pon the conclusion of [the final] hearing, the Secretary of Labor shall issue a final order within one' hundred and twenty days” — is found not only in the Secretary’s implementing rules, but also in the statute. 49 U. S. C. App. § 2305(c)(2)(A). Leaving aside the dubious validity of this cavalier treatment of a statutory imperative, the fact that the Secretary regards the time periods governing final relief as directory reveals that the final decision will not be reached within six months, let alone promptly. The combination of uncertainty and delay inherent in the Secretary’s regulatory scheme eliminates any possibility that it might compensate for the inadequacy of the predeprivation hearing.
Because I believe that the District Court correctly held that the Secretary may not order preliminary reinstatement without first providing the employer with a chance to confront its accuser, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present its own testimony, I would affirm its judgment. I therefore dissent in part from the plurality opinion and the judgment of the Court.
The employer’s property interest — its right to discharge an employee for cause under the collective-bargaining agreement — is less substantial than other interests which may not be impaired without confrontation and cross-examination. See, e. g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 266-271 (1970). Moreover, the property interest is less weighty here because it must be balanced against the Government’s interest in highway safety and the wrongfully discharged employee’s interest in retaining his or her job. The less substantial weight of the property interest, however, is not dis-positive. When the validity of any deprivation depends on the resolution of a factual dispute, the initial check against mistaken decisions is inadequate unless either a fair opportunity for confrontation, cross-examination, and presentation of testimony is provided or an evidentiary hearing and final disposition follow on the heels of the preliminary determination.