Miller v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners, 833 F. Supp. 2d 513

Miller sues the Board, Seawright, and Jones under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process violations.
Miller, employed since 1997, most recently as a cafeteria manager at Frederick Douglass High School, faced a Board investigation into alleged misappropriation of funds.
In Feb. 2009, Miller was invited to resign at a meeting where the Board discussed possible action; she denied the allegations.
Miller was suspended without pay on Feb. 18, 2009, with a pre-termination hearing promised but not held; later meetings indicated no formal investigation or termination decision.
In March 2009 Miller faced a proposed demotion or continued suspension; she refused the demotion and remained on unpaid suspension, ultimately retiring; no hearing to clear her name occurred.
Miller filed suit on July 27, 2010; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(5); the court denied the motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Miller had a protected property interest in continued employment	Miller alleges non-at-will status and a promise of a hearing.	Defendants contend Miller lacked a protected property interest in continued employment.	Miller has alleged a protected property interest at this stage.
Whether Miller's deprivation of that interest occurred without due process	Forced choice between demotion and indefinite suspension deprived her of due process.	The Board asserts proper procedures were not violated given the anticipated decision process.	At this stage, deprivation may have occurred; due process concerns remain.
Whether the procedures afforded were constitutionally adequate	Miller was not given timely notice and an opportunity to present her side before a decision.	Procedural safeguards could be appropriate under the circumstances.	Complaint plausibly alleges inadequate process; dismissal denied.
Whether Seawright was improperly served	Service was sufficient despite the misnamed recipient and open-envelope notice.	Insufficient process grounds to dismiss should be evaluated.	Service is sufficiently noticeable; Seawright's motion denied.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (requires plausible claims, not mere mutual consistency)
Loudermill, Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v., 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (employee must be given opportunity to respond prior to termination)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for due process)
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1972) (concept of protected entitlement via mutual understandings)
Sunrise Corp. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 420 F.3d 322 (4th Cir. 2005) (due process in public employment; protected interest inquiry)