Handverger v. City of Winooski, Vermont, 5:08-cv-00246

Handverger was hired as City Manager of Winooski in Oct 2007 under a three-year Employment Agreement.
The City Council voted to terminate Handverger in September 2008 after a letter from department heads demanding his resignation.
The City Council conducted a removal process under the City Charter and the Employment Agreement, including a September 22, 2008 preliminary removal resolution.
Handverger contends the September 30, 2008 removal hearing conflicted with his observance of Rosh Hashanah and sought accommodations.
He asserted Title VII and FEPA discrimination claims and a §1983 procedural due process claim, while Winooski asserted no protected property interest and offered a hearing but denied the broader Charter-based procedures.
The court granted summary judgment for Winooski on the §1983 claims (property and liberty interests) and denied summary judgment on the Title VII/FEPA claims, reserving fact-finding on the accommodation issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Religious accommodation failure under Title VII/FEPA	Handverger claimed Winooski failed to reasonably accommodate his Rosh Hashanah observance.	Winooski argued no conflict with employment requirements and that an accommodation was offered.	Summary judgment denied on Title VII/FEPA claims; questions of reasonableness for a fact-finder.
Existence of a protected property interest in continued employment	Handverger argued Charter and Employment Agreement created a property interest requiring just cause.	Charter allowed removal “at any time,” no substantive limit; no protected property interest exists.	The court granted summary judgment for Winooski; no constitutionally protected property interest.
Right to a name-clearing hearing (liberty interest)	Handverger claimed denial of a name-clearing hearing violated due process.	Winooski argued no request for a named hearing; hearing offered with conditions.	Handverger failed to establish a required request for a name-clearing hearing; liberty claim dismissed.
Adequacy of pre- and post-deprivation process for liberty interest	Procedural due process required a meaningful opportunity to clear his name before/after termination.	Hearing offered and opportunities to respond were provided; timing issues disputed.	§1983 liberty interest claim dismissed; no adequate denial shown given available hearing.

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. 748 (U.S. 2005) (due process property interests balanced with state law)
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (public employees with property interests cannot be fired without notice and hearing)
Brennan v. Town of Colchester, 730 A.2d 601 (Vt. 1999) (definite-term municipal employment can be terminated only for just cause)
Roth v. Board of Regents, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (definition of protected property interest in benefits)
Segal v. City of New York, 459 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2006) (name-clearing hearing requirements and stigma-plus framework)