may please the court your honor it's thomas b c representing the plaintiff thomas white thomas white was a public sector employee of the city of bridgeport for six years when he was terminated and c district court noted in that action bridgeport conceded that the plaintiff was deprived of a protected property interest in his job as a member of the bridgeport classified service the only dispute concerns whether the plaintiff received constitutionally adequate process to allow him to challenge the grounds of this terminations is there any  there is a right to a post terminations remedy the appellate courts have indicated it with regard to administrative decisions precedent where the issue is whether there was just cause for terminations i hear you on on that and if this were a case of first impression i would find that a very powerful argument but isn't  what new york does an article seventy eight proceedings and that's what we held and wire was was good enough i thought i believe the article seventy eight is an exception that doesn't apply to connecticut connecticut in the state courts of connecticut where no appeal provision has been provided what about the at least seven cases cited by a judge mired in the district court in which connecticut state court in i pointed out my brief that there is another there are other superior court cases that have recognized that have not recognized that right and there has been no appellate decision to finally determine whether an individual has a right to bring a plenary action upon his dismissal from city employment and i think to hold that a plane or reaction substitutes for a post deprivation administrative hearing runs counter to the loudermilk the lottery mil decision  full opportunity to be heard and he was seeking an appeal after that hearing mr white wasn't given a here and giving him an appeal  administrative appeal where he didn't get a hearing it's not similar to the cases that judge meyer cites in this case for instance october twenty one versus putting his only commission there was a full hearing before the planning and zon commission parties were represented evidence was taken a decision was rendered party said the evidence the the zoning commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously because there was no evidence to cause for the terminations i don't think the same and i think you have to look at pre term anation post terminations on a continuum it's a it's the less street germination you get the more ok that's been conceded and what the what the argument here is is that there should have been granted a post terminations administrative hearing to allow versus a for raise that issue that the only decision rendered by the reagan court or the dryer court was that he was not entitled to a preacherman ation hearing because he didn't  other statement said came out of the dryer court for instance that there had to be a neutral hearing officer pre term a nation that will curdle found not to be constitutionally mandated was dicta the same with the statement with regard to adequate state court proceedings but just i just want to emphasize that the article seventy eight there is no connecticut superior court where changes supreme court or connecticut appellate court that has established that an employee who is dismissed can bring a plenary action in the state courts if he brings a wrongful discharge claim he has to show more than that if there wasn't just cause he has to show a violation of public policy a violation of a constitutional right not just set there wasn't just cause to support his terminations article seventy eight addresses it even if it's on an arbitrary capricious basis you could raise  retained an opportunity to pursue appropriate relief in the state court it was a full and fair opportunity to be heard on a plenary rights action the amount of process that the grievance is due is flexible and it calls for procedural protections that the particular situation demands the particular situation here is a post terminations months after the fact where the employee came forward and claimed that the elimination of his position was a sham abolition of the second circuit has never been persuaded that the state must return only provide hearings for employees whose positions are targeted for elimination likewise the denial of a request for an administration in administrative post terminations hearing is insufficient to establish a denial of due process as long as the employee had a full of fair opportunity to adjudicate his claim of abolition in the state court mr white had exactly that here it's clear from the appellate court's decision and dancing her the absence of an express appeal provisions is not for close other forms of judicial relief where appropriate if any person claims to be harmed by an order of an administrative board his constitutional right to due process is protected by his privilege to apply to a court for relief a person claiming to be a whore would seek approach plenary action for relief this means that the aggrieved person may bring a plan or reaction rather than administrative appeal against the appropriate officials were municipality in order to obtain judicial review of their actions mr wright mr white had a right to go to the superior court on a platter reaction to contest not only the dial of his hearing but the merits of his claim the appellate suggest that the city would bear the burden both before the administrative agency and the superior court i disagree normally when employees discharged in the first instance all agree that the municipal employer should show cause for that or just cause under the provisions of the bridgeport city charter i believe it's phrased as reasons to promote the good of the service but where the appellee comes forward in a firm of lee makes an allegation that the reason for who is your distinguishing the situation a budgetary my off that is alleged to be pretextual from a situation where the discharge is disciplinary and is based on some allegation of wrongdoing on the part of the employee absolutely and that's exactly what this circuit didn't wire and that's the crux of the issue here as the second circuit observed in look courteau no reason exists to depart from the general presumption that  superior court case in which a deputy chief in a police department wanted to contest his terminations and was permitted to do so as a plenary rights action in the superior court the appellant in this case relies very much on the paul smith case by the vermont supreme court couple of distinctions there number one that was a dismissal case for cause it was a disciplinary dismissal this is an allegation by the  fact about that from our case noted in vermont that it was concerned the trial courts might see would not be sitting in review and administrative decisions but rather would become fact finders in the first instance my response to that is connecticut is not for a mob when you take a look at the body of case law in connecticut connecticut has welcomed these plenary rights actions it refuses to let employees be locked out and not have a place to go to contest their constitutional plait employees in connecticut are not that night due process our supreme court our public courts have made sure that through a plan or rights action  honor the claim that there's an administrative that there's an appeal a cleaner reaction that would take the place of this post germination due process claim again runs counter to the nee again the courts in connecticut have basically said after you've had in a ministry to hear mr white did not happen in the history of hearing after you've had a ministry of hearing  but the statute doesn't provide for an appeal from that administrative hearing connecticut courts view that is a violation of due process you should be able to appeal a decision of in a ministry to board to the cour the connecticut supreme court has said we take care of that by allowing the individual to bring an action contesting the decision of the i'm in a strait of agency claiming that it was a that satisfies due process that is not similar to the situation in the present case where mr white requests city here and regardless of the preponderance of evidence at that hearing he  under loudermilk to a post deprivation hearing he was not provided that's a violation of the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution bringing a plenary action doesn't satisfy the supreme court i believe in logan versus zimmer and basically said in that situation a court for instance couldn't give relief of reinstatement and therefore eight