West v. Hoover, 681 F. App'x 13

Background

Warren West served as Coventry, RI finance director from 2005 until his termination in 2011 after allegations he violated the state "maintenance of effort" requirement for school funding.
West was suspended with pay, given notice and a private auditor's report a week before an August 20, 2010 pre-termination hearing, where he (with counsel) submitted a line-by-line rebuttal; he was terminated the same day.
West received a five-day post-termination hearing before a three-member Personnel Board; he cross-examined the Town's witnesses, called two witnesses, and submitted exhibits; the Board advised Town Manager Hoover, who retained final authority.
West sued in state court asserting multiple claims including a § 1983 procedural due process claim; the case was removed to federal court and the district court granted summary judgment for defendants; West appealed.
The First Circuit reviewed de novo whether the combined pre- and post-termination process satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment's procedural due process requirements and affirmed summary judgment for defendants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether West waived other federal claims by focusing only on due process	West asserted multiple counts in his complaint; contends district court improperly reduced them to a single due-process claim	Defendants and district court treated other counts as waived because West did not develop arguments on them	Waived — Court deems undeveloped contentions abandoned and proceeds on the due-process claim
Whether pre- and post-termination procedures satisfied procedural due process	Pre-hearing limitations, contemporaneous termination, inability to confront witnesses, and board composition made the process a sham	West received notice, auditor report, opportunity to rebut pre-termination, and a full five-day post-termination hearing with cross-examination and exhibits	Process adequate as a matter of law — combined pre- and post-process met Loudermill standards
Whether alleged bias or improper appointments denied meaningful post-termination review	Political appointments, possible conflict involving special counsel, and town solicitor involvement rendered the Board and hearing officer biased	No record evidence showing pretext, connection between politics and termination, or that the advisor/hearing officer was a decisionmaker; Hoover/Board made the decision	No disqualifying bias shown; even participation by termination-maker would not necessarily violate due process
Whether West was entitled to subpoenas or that charter violations converted procedural defects into constitutional violations	West argues subpoenas were necessary and that Town Charter violations deprived him of due process	Subpoenas not required for constitutionally adequate post-termination review; state-law/charter violations do not automatically create federal due-process claims	Not entitled to subpoenas; charter or state-law violations alone do not establish federal constitutional violation

Key Cases Cited

Farmers Ins. Exch. v. RNK, Inc., 632 F.3d 777 (1st Cir. 2011) (summary-judgment standard)
Senra v. Town of Smithfield, 715 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2013) (evaluate totality of pre- and post-termination process)
Wojcik v. Mass. State Lottery Comm'n, 300 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2002) (pretermination hearing requirement)
Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) (preliminary vs. fuller post-termination process)
Chmielinski v. Massachusetts, 513 F.3d 309 (1st Cir. 2008) (minimal elements of termination hearing)
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (notice, explanation of evidence, opportunity to respond)
Cepero-Rivera v. Fagundo, 414 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2005) (adequacy of prehearing notice)
Torres-Rosado v. Rotger-Sabat, 335 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) (adequacy of notice and process)
O'Neill v. Baker, 210 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2000) (termination letter drafted in advance does not automatically invalidate process)