*1 Moussa. The the dis- deport the INS accusation broad issues is AFFIRMED. trict court therefore legal claim His second law. violated “Moussa’s the INS violated asserts procedural to substantive
rights by the United guaranteed as
process Constitution,” afford and did not
States adjudication of his a “full and fair
him Id. stay deportation.” for a
application
¶ not ex- petition does 40-41. Moussa’s SINGFIELD, William Plaintiff- process right the substantive due plain Appellant, He endangered by the INS order. that is any statutory or also does not indicate legal proposition for the other basis AKRON METROPOLITAN HOUSING care right a due medical he has AUTHORITY, al., et Defendants- in the United States. Appellees. habeas therefore find that Moussa’s We No. 03-3735. that we review ultimately requests petition Appeals, States Court of to execute an order United a determination statutory or Sixth Circuit. there is removal. Unless objection, for an such constitutional basis 10, 2004. Argued: Aug. strictly the unre- falls determination Nov. Decided Filed: Attorney Gener- discretion of viewable al.
III. CONCLUSION us, it clear that
In the record before in the United States
Moussa’s time by significant marked contributions
been family community. Fur- and to his
ther, fun- question this court does by the writ protection provided
damental role safeguard- and its corpus
of habeas against freedom lawless
ing an individual’s arbitrary strongly action.
or state finding Supreme Court’s
agree with the ... duty of a court higher
that “there adjudica- processing
than careful cor- petitions for writs habeas
tion Nelson, Harris
pus.” 22 L.Ed.2d
But the district director’s decision arbitrary. It is thus lawless nor
neither court, regardless
unreviewable agree INS decision
whether *3 Gilbert, Slater, Edward L. ARGUED: uine issues of material fact with regard to Akron, Gilbert, OH, Zurz & for Appellant. whether the Authority deprived Tersigni, Buckingham, Vincent J. Doolittle him procedural and retaliat- Akron, OH, Burroughs, & for Appellees. ed against him in violation of Title VII. Gilbert, Slater, BRIEF: Edward L. ON Therefore, we reverse judgment Gilbert, Akron, OH, Zurz Appellant. & part. claims, As to the other the district Manfull, Tersigni, Ashley Vincent M. J. properly court concluded that Buckingham, Burroughs, Doolittle & Ak- issues of fact remain and the defendants ron, OH, for Appellees. entitled to as a matter law. KEITH, MARTIN, Before:
ROGERS; Judges. Circuit
I.
MARTIN, J., opinion delivered the Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority court, KEITH, J., joined. in which public agency is a by chartered ROGERS, the State 568), (p. separate J. delivered a of Ohio and dissenting opinion. by funded the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Devel- opment provide subsidized housing OPINION eligible citizens of County, Summit Ohio. MARTIN, Judge. Circuit Singfield began full-time with Singfield, William an African-American Housing Authority in June of 1992. male, appeals grant the district court’s tenure, During Singfield his worked as a summary judgment to the Akron Metro- courier, janitor, painter, and, finally, main- politan Housing Authority on his claims of worker, tenance position from which discrimination, retaliation, racial and due suspended on August and process equal and protection violations.1 January 25, terminated on 2002. His sus- Singfield alleges that the Akron Metropoli- pension, according to Housing Authori- Housing Authority tan violated Title VII of ty, resulted from a long history of improp- Rights the Civil Act of 42 U.S.C. er outbursts at work that culminated in a 2000e, §§ seq., Chapter et and 4112 of the disagreement on August 8 with super- Code, Ohio Revised terminating his em- visor, Reinhart, Mike Singfield after which ployment racially-motivated reasons was escorted Also, from the premises. retaliating against and him after he filed day, later that Reinhart duplicate found six charges of racially-discriminatory treat- keys master on key ring. The ment. Singfield alleges under U.S.C. Housing Authority’s key “master policy” § Housing Authority and its prohibits non-management employees such director, Anthony executive O’Leary, de- as Singfield from prived having duplicate keys him of his rights constitutional subjects equal protection. those who violate the policy conclude that Singfield presented gen- graded discipline.2 forms of Singfield appeals pre-trial also two disciplinary discov- 2. General non-compli- action for However, ery rulings. key anee policy with the master because is as these claims follows: 72(a) untimely reprimand First -A letter of under Rule will be Federal Offense file, placed employee's in the Procedure, Rules of Civil we do not address -Suspension Second pay for a them. Offense period days. of three work return to permitted in order to be Resources Di- August Human On work, of employment. a condition Singfield Yuhasz met with and as Christine rector representative professional helps you to discuss If the who man- a union Housing Au- day’s your events. feels that it will take age anger previous acknowledged Singfield thority thirty days, your states longer suspension than any responsibili- but denied the altercation until will be such time as extended he/ nothing knew said he ty, and your work. she recommends return to key keys ring. on his duplicate about letter, it is clear the Hous- From meeting August follow-up had a They ing Authority suspended Singfield for en- those they same where discussed gaging August 8 altercation with rumors, which and recent events altercations,” Reinhart other “such denied, to kill a attempted that he once Authority’s and for violating August supervisor. On former “master key policy.” letter Housing Authority sent Singfield acknowledges that he was dis- following which included the suspension, throughout ciplined employ- at times statement: May Authority. ment our letter is to confirm conversa- This 1994, the Housing Authority suspended *5 today, you being tion earlier days Singfield for three because en- thirty day unpaid on a minimum placed two gaged a verbal confrontation with Wednesday, Au- suspension, effective to situa- tenants and failed neutralize the required 2001. You are also to gust Housing In Au- August tion. of anger management, assistance for seek thority Singfield days suspended for five through Employee As- either AMHA’s in a verbal engaged after he confrontation through qualified Program or sistance co-worker, Fambro, re- with Shelia who your of choice. individual suspension the inci- day ceived one for is suspension The reason from and dent. Work evaluations August an incident which occurred cite need to in the improve your After altercation with and category Others” “Relationships With Reinhart, in a unit Michael supervisor, cooperation super- in his with conduct Hills, you were sent Colonial Finally, Executive visors co-workers. day. keys for the Your home were O’Leary Anthony Director had several hanging from the lockbox. After found re- Singfield with in 2000 conversations examining the it found that six keys was garding problems supervisors. with his keys. master keys duplicated were suspension, Sing- August After keys of master duplication Unauthorized disciplin- of any field did not have a record according policy. to AMHA is forbidden years, until the ary problems for seven The altercation with Mr. Reinhart was 8, 2001, August altercation with Reinhart. of several altercations between one such During Singfield’s suspension, some your as as you supervisors, well approached Housing co-workers your during fellow em- employees with concerns management with expected with AMHA. It ployment him. told working with Reinhart about you participate type will in some Singfield, Yuhasz feared and that that he anger management while treatment told him that he previously You had serving your suspension. will be supervisor, once to kill a provide proof hoped of treatment had former required AMHA. Third. -Termination Offense waiting in but that after the snow outside threats of violence to and intimidation of supervisor’s his former house his hands employees, temporary employees, man- pull too cold to grown trigger. had agers, addition, by you. tenants that she was in- Yuhasz has stated also we have learned of attempted acts of supervisor and a union formed stew- violence employees by you. toward As a employees Sing- ard that several feared result of findings, these we must termi- field and did not want him to return to your nate employment to any avoid fur- work; employees reported they these any ther risk of potentially violent situa- kill a attempted heard he had former tions that could result in harm to our supervisor family and that his has a histo- employees.
ry of violence. Singfield subsequently filed this lawsuit.
After a few weeks of treatment with a
II. Standard of Review
counselor affiliated with the
Au-
Housing
thority’s
Provider,
Employee Assistance
We review de novo the district court’s
the counselor indicated to the
Au- grant
summary
judgment. Newman v.
willingness
thority
to release
Exp. Corp.,
Federal
return to work. The
Authority Cir.2001). Summary judgment
appro-
balked, and then informed the counselor of priate where the evidence shows “that
Singfield’s history of anger management,
there is no
issue as to any materi-
during
the incidents
occurred
Sing-
al fact and that the moving party is enti-
employment,
field’s
and the rumors about
tled to
as a matter of law.”
family history
of violence. The coun-
56(c).
FED. R.
P.
CIV.
In deciding an
selor
referred
to a psycholo-
then
appeal
grant
of a
summary
judgment,
*6
gist,
who did not release
to re- we view the evidence and
all
draw
reason-
Knowing
turn to work.
that the counselor
able inferences in favor of Singfield, the
would have released him but for the Hous- non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec.
interference,
ing Authority’s
Singfield filed Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Corp.,
Radio
475 U.S.
a discrimination claim with
Equal
Em-
574, 587,
1348,
106 S.Ct.
that employment with The Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority being Singfield alleges that the Housing Au- today. terminated as of thority violated Title by VII discharging a This termination is result of informa- him based on his race and in retaliation for tion during we have obtained the investi- Singfield’s charges of discrimination. The gation we have conducted since the time Authority states that it dis- your of suspension. We have learned of charged Singfield for engaging in threats lounge, employees white were allowed to violence, intimidating employees its cards[,] newspaper.” and read the tenants, key poli- play its violating “master He that he “was forced to no also asserts Finding Singfield presented cy.” mower, truck, ... drive instead fact and lawn genuine issue of material employees,” provides unlike but he judg- entitled to white Housing Authority was allegations and law, proof support these district court a matter of ment as do not Texas his articulations suffice. See Housing Authority’s motion granted Burdine, 450 Dep’t Cmty. summary judgment. Affairs 255 n. 101 S.Ct. under Title VII A. Discrimination (1981) (“[a]n articulation not L.Ed.2d 207 and the Revised Code Ohio into will admitted evidence not suffice. Thus, cannot its bur- the defendant meet governing law federal case Because counsel”). merely by argument ... den generally applicable to Title VII actions is argues that Reinhart made also law, under claims Ohio discrimination to him. He “racially derogatory remarks” Singfield’s race analyze discrimination tractor, says driving that while federal law. See Little claim terms of out, you all Reinhart called “Now need Rights Med. v. Ohio Civil Forest Ctr. lights to turn and wear a straw Comm’n, 575 N.E.2d Ohio St.3d hat.” not to the teasing does rise Such (“ (1991) ‘reliable, probative, sub level of a violation. The Su- constitutional in an dis stantial evidence’ “simple teas- preme Court held brought pursuant to [Ohio crimination case comments, ing” or “offhand and isolated means Chapter 4112 evi Code] Revised not evi- do amount direct incidents” support finding of sufficient to dence dence discrimination under Title VII. VII”) (quoting Title under discrimination Raton, City Faragher v. Boca Appren & Joint Plumbers Steamfitters L.Ed.2d Rights ticeship Comm. v. Ohio Civil (1988), Seidner, accord Comm’n, 421 N.E.2d Ohio St.2d Hafford (6th Cir.1999). 506, 512-16 The district (1981)). makes it unlawful Title VII these com- properly court found against to “discriminate employer for an true, if plaints, “even do amount compen respect individual with to his any *7 of racial discrimination.” direct evidence conditions, sation, terms, privileges or of such individual’s employment because re McDonnell-Douglas paradigm sex, race, color, or national ori religion, and Singfield to inferential quires show 2000e-2(a)(l)(1994). §§ 42 gin.” U.S.C. jury a from which circumstantial evidence may a prima establish facie case Singfield discrimination. could an inference of draw by racial Title VII for discrimination under Kline, so, doing Sing- at In 128 F.3d introducing discrimina direct evidence of (1) he following: that field must show the McDonnellr-Douglas using tion or (2) that protected group; a of a is member burden-shifting paradigm. Kline v. Tenn. subject he an adverse was (6th Auth., F.3d Valley Cir. action; (3) for the qualified was he Rest., 1997) (citing Talley v. Bravo Pitino (4) fired; and position from which he was (6th Cir.1995)). L.T.D., 61 F.3d differently em than that he was treated fails under both standards. Singfield class for protected ployees outside Talley, 61 or similar conduct. of discrimina same As direct evidence Toledo (citing F.3d Mitchell v. tion, “received the at Singfield asserts (6th Cir.1992)). Hosp., F.2d assignments and while hardest dirtiest stated, dispute, original). Ercego without satisfies We further in Singfield, Co., fourth Goodyear three elements. The ele vich v. Tire and the first Rubber difficult, (6th bemay Cir.1998), and satisfied ment is more that “[t]he similarly non- by showing plaintiff situated need not an exact demonstrate more employees were treated protected employee receiving correlation Mitchell, at favorably. 964 F.2d 582-83. more favorable treatment in for the order argues that the Authori Singfield ‘similarly-situated;’ two to be considered severely him more than oth ty disciplined plaintiff employee ... rather and the key policy plaintiff er who violated the employees compare with whom seeks to threatening or behav or exhibited violent herself in ‘all himself or must be similar ” employees who violated the aspects.’ Perry ior. Other the relevant Stock, McGinnis, a white key policy include: John Cir. suspended days 2000), three janitor who was applying we reasserted that “in key, which ac one master duplicating standard courts should not demand [this] worked, correlation, in an area which Stock cessed exact but should seek instead authorization; Arnes, Virgil a similarity.” Applying princi relevant Mitchell, given maintenance worker who was in ples Ercegovich, white set forth prior reprimand years that, a ten to the Perry, written conclude although co leading leaving to this case for events workers to which him compares in key assigned vehicle over may respects, master self have similarities in some night. employees Other who exhibited none similar in way was that is funda or violent include: threatening behavior employee mental to this case: no violated allegedly Tom who threw a toilet Spurlock, key policy engaged threatening in discipline; Reinhart and received no seat at or behavior. violent Because none of the Caporuscio, Feinman and Dan who employees allegedly Ronald cited in engaged allegedly engaged fist-fight work range of activities for which Singfield was by supervisor but did employee similarly that was witnessed disciplined, situat subject discipline; either man to ed. Herrick, an employee allegedly John who By failing satisfy element, the fourth physical supervisor threats to made Singfield fails to prima establish a facie holiday party years during prior thirteen case of discrimination under Title VII. leading events case. Of the to the Therefore, the district properly court dis- cites, the district examples claim. missed the similarly that no employee court found each because in exam situated B. Title VII Retaliation Claim job, ple employee worked a different *8 Housing claims that the Au- supervisor, had a different and committed thority fired him a because he filed dis- documented significant less offenses or no Employ- crimination claim with Equal the at all. offense Opportunity ment Commission. Title VII explained As in this Court first makes it unlawful for an “to employer Mitchell, against any is fundamental that to make “[i]t discriminate ... or employee ... plaintiffs applicant a of a discrimination because comparison employee] [the non-minority employ any to that of opposed practice, treatment an unlawful made ees, plaintiff employment practice by the must show that the ‘com- chapter, this sub parables’ similarly testified, in all re or he has a charge, situated because made spects." (emphasis assisted, 964 in participated any F.2d at 583 or in manner in
563
Cir.1988)
af
discharge “soon
hearing
(employee’s
or
proceeding,
investigation,
activity
in
“is indi
engaging
protected
42
ter”
chapter.”
sub
U.S.C.
under
this
(1994).
2000e-3(a)
causal
between
proof
to meet
rect
of a
connection
§§
In order
firing
it is
activity
a
the
and the
because
facie standards for
retaliation
prima
the
(1)
retaliation.”); Mil
strongly suggestive
that:
of
claim,
must
he
establish
Indus., Inc.,
VII,
F.2d 727
Title
ler v. Fairchild
activity protected by
engaged in
Cir.1986)
(9th
(“Causation
(2)
to es
sufficient
Authority
knowledge
had
Housing
the
(3)
prima
tablish a
facie case of unlawful retal
rights,
of his civil
of his exercise
may
proximity
him
iation
be inferred from the
Authority subjected
to an
Housing
(4)
action,
protected
in time
action and
caus-
between
employment
adverse
discharge.”).
allegedly retaliatory
protected
exists between the
al connection
was terminated
employment
ac-
submits
activity and
adverse
Gov’t,
just
three
January
over
80 F.3d
tion. Harrison Metro.
(6th Cir.1996)
he filed
(citing Wrenn v. months after
a discrimination
(6th Cir.1987)).
employment
Gould,
charge with the
commission.
F.2d
argues
temporal prox
He
that from such
judgment stage
summary
At the
imity
retaliatory
infer a
motive.
we should
cases,
proof
in
the order
retaliation
agree,
temporal
and conclude that the
light
is viewed
shifting of burdens
significant
proximity of these events is
summary
test.
Fos
traditional
enough to constitute sufficient evidence
Assocs., Inc.,
F.2d
ter v. Arcata
purpose
a causal connection
(9th Cir.1985),
denied, 475
cert.
satisfying Singfield’s burden of demon
1267,
tercations, made statements that he to oth present discrimination cases difficult is employees regarding attempt his to kill er fact, “[tjhere the sues for trier of as will supervisor, psychologist’s and the former ‘eyewitness’ seldom be testimony as the not to release him return to decision employer’s processes”), thereby mental evidence, Housing With this the work. frequently making such factual determina Authority successfully rebuts inference tions for disposition unsuitable at the sum retaliation, and the burden shifts once mary judgment stage, City Lowe v. prof again to show that Monrovia, 775 F.2d 1009 Cir. explanations merely pretext fered 1985) (stating very little additional Wrighten, discrimination. 726 F.2d at required evidence to raise a motive, regarding issue of fact con “A plaintiff pre can demonstrate cluding summary on by showing that proffered text reason ordinarily merits is inappropriate once (1) (2) fact, actually in not basis did established). prima facie case has been challenged con motivate defendant’s our urged Several of sister circuits have (3) duct, or warrant was insufficient to granting caution in summary judgment A.B. challenged conduct.” Dick Dews plaintiff prima once the has satisfied the (6th Cir.2000). Co., 231 F.3d They facie case. have concluded that once Housing Singfield claims that the Authori prima facie case by is established either him ty begin not in ear investigating did the introduction of direct or evidence reli until he filed nest the discrimination ance Douglas on McDonnell presump in argues October. He charge tion, summary judgment for the defendant Housing Authority’s history reasons —his ordinarily will appropriate any be alleged of altercations and the state ground relating to the merits because the terminating ments —for crux Title dispute of a VII is the “elusive pretextual were because the Au factual question intentional discrimina thority would not have discovered them tion,” Burdine, 255 n. words, retaliating. other See, Foster, e.g., S.Ct. 1089. 772 F.2d at retaliation, Housing Authority’s which be (courts generally about cautious gan investigations Singfield' with its after granting summary judgment in Title VII October, in charge filed discrimination involved); cases where intent culminated its termination of his em Sweat Co., ployment January. argues Brewing Miller He also (11th Cir.1983) (“ Housing Authority’s third reason —the ‘granting summary psychologist’s refusal him to release to judgment is especially questionable’” in return to pretextual work—is because his employment discrimination (quoting cases counselor intended to release him but was Bank, Hayden v. First Nat’l 595 F.2d prohibited doing from so (5th Cir.1979))); Sawyer, McKenzie v. Authority. (D.C.Cir.1982) (factual dis putes in most Title preclude VII -cases
Courts have that in recognized dis judgment). summary agree that cau cases, crimination and retaliation em tion should be in granting exercised sum ployer’s true particularly motivations are mary judgment plaintiff once a ascertain, has estab difficult to see United States Aikens, prima lished a facie Postal Serv. Bd. inference of retaliation Governors or through S.Ct. direct circumstantial evidence.
565 agree bargaining and the collective Authority’s true reasons book Housing The through that he into his present an “elu- ment entered discharging Singfield Burdine, Authority. 450 at In union with the ad question,” factual sive 1089, right, Singfield of contractual incapable n. 101 S.Ct. reso- dition the 255 judgment. light of summary property right lution on that his also derived argues argument temporal that the “objective expectations his of entitle from charge 1) and the expectation of discrimination These are his that proximity ment.” gives rise to an terminated pre- his termination inference a he “would not be retaliation, that hearing, we conclude he of because no one had termination sufficiency standard pretermination at a satisfied been terminated without 2) Though Sing- judgment phase. [twenty-five] years,” summary hearing for and fail at trial to establish his Title may long field that he not be fired as he would as preponder- under the suspen retaliation claim of complied VII terms standard, i.e., ance of the evidence district anger management obtained sion — dismissing the Title VII counseling. court erred The district court found that stage. claim at this statutory retaliation failed to establish a in continued property right Constitutional Claims IV. that, Housing Authority, even if he A Due Process Claim through a property did have a interest implied agreement, contract or terms of guarantee amendment’s fourteenth of Housing Authority satisfied all procedural due assures that pre-termination process was due. We life, liberty, property or “be deprivation a disagree. Singfield property right had a preceded by opportunity notice and pursuant to the terms of the collective hearing appropriate to the nature of the a bargaining agreement has raised Bd. Educ. v. Louder case.” Cleveland fact genuine issue of material as to wheth mill, 470 U.S. Authority provided him er (1986); Lee L.Ed.2d 494 see also v. W. process. we conclude that Because Ctr., Psychiatric Reserve Habilitation property right through had Cir.1984). (6th F.2d contract, argu need not we address provided he neither. To argues that was implied right for an based on his ments claim, two-step in a engage resolve this objective expectations entitlement. initially analysis: we determine whether protected property interest exists and then Property interests are “created required protect procedures are what by their are defined exist dimensions v. Johnston-Taylor interest. Gan understandings rules that stem ing or (6th Cir.1990). non, 1577, 1581 907 F.2d as state independent from an source such that, understandings as un or that secure
Singfield concedes
law—rules
support
he
benefits
claims
employee,
classified civil service
held
certain
those
Bd. Re
statutory right under Ohio law contin
entitlement to
benefits.”
See,
Roth,
e.g.,
gents
v.
408 U.S.
S.Ct.
employment.
ued
Vodila Clel
land,
Cir.1987);
A property
inter
accord 33 L.Ed.2d
statute,
Kukulinsky,
by
can be created
state
est
Christophel
(6th Cir.1995).
contract,
However,
or
argues
implied
a contract
from
formal
provided
Perry
him
circumstances.
v. Sinder
right
such
See
mann,
593, 602,
language
S.Ct.
through contract
(1972); Bailey
Floyd
Coun-
Employment Hand L.Ed.2d 570
Housing Authority’s
*11
Towler,
By
Through
basis
ty
charges
Bd.
Educ.
and
to believe
the
against
(6th
Cir.1997);
employee
the
Woolsey
106 F.3d
are true.
Duchesne
(6th
Hunt,
Cir.1991). Williams,
(6th
932 F.2d
849 F.2d
Cir.
1988).
bargaining agreement
court
Sing-
collective
The district
found that
Authority
August
August
pre-suspen
states:
field’s
9 and
with
sion hearings
any procedural
satisfied
due
Discharge/Suspension.
Section 3.
No
process requirements relating to
termi
his
employee
discharged
shall be
or sus-
nation.
disagree.
pended
just
degree
cause. The
discipline
will depend
administered
giv
was notified and
the nature
and seriousness
the of-
explanation
en an
charges
giving
employee’s past
fense and the
record of
rise to his
but
suspension,
he was not
discipline
performance. Discipline
an
given
explanation
notified or
normally
will
in a
applied
progressive
be
charges giving rise to his
In
termination.
except
manner
in cases
severe viola-
pre-suspension hearing,
his
Singfield heard
policies.
tions of AMHA
only
and contested
those charges relating
stated,
Authority explicitly
the Housing
As
to
Housing Authority’s
pol
key
master
employees
agreed
discharge
only
its
for
icy and
August
his
altercation
Rein-
just
agreement
cause.
in Sing-
This
vests
suspended
hart. After it
Singfield, the
necessary
property
field
interest
Authority
gathered new informa
employment.
continued
See Brock v.
that, by
admission,
tion
its own
it to
caused
Inc.,
Roadway Express,
260-
employment.
terminate Singfield’s
Yet
(1987)
employer’s evidence, and a
to pres
chance
under 42
§
claims
U.S.C.
story.
ent
side of the
the Housing
violated his
course,
fact remain
be,
O’Leary
did not share such
might
requirements
process.
See
understanding.
may
339-43,
A
Eldridge,
fact-finder
con Mathews v.
objective
(1976);
clude that an
reasonable official 96 S.Ct.
V. cess Singfield received therefore satisfies reasons, foregoing For the we reverse requirements procedural flexible the district court’s process. due claims, process retaliation and due least, very At O’Leary’s qualified immunity qualified immunity claim. As to claims, warranted Mr. Reinhart all other we affirm. on the due
process
Even if
process
issue.
due
should
ROGERS,
Judge, dissenting.
Circuit
requiring
extend to
that validly suspended
employees get the
“pre-termination”
same
my
Because in
view the district court
hearing
working
employees get, there
properly granted summary judgment on
has been
demonstration that
such
procedural
claim,
process
I re
requirement
is “clearly established.” See
spectfully dissent from Part III.A. of the
Fitzgerald,
Harlow v.
majority opinion.
is a
process
“Due
flexi
2000). require Due does not
all for a final bases decision terminate part
be of an to suspend. initial decision
Once employee suspended has been violation,
without a due process proper ty interest is lessened. interest is not His MILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Lisa staying employed, in returning but work. “Termination” in context merely date, employee formal BARBOURVILLE; as the is THE CITY OF working neither before nor after that date. Department; Barbourville Police Mi Broughton, such a context a “post-termination” chael in his individual hearing may capacities; well satisfy Johnny Smith, be sufficient to official