relationship nominally continued it now published at one hundred five cal for twelve ninety three and the california supreme court denied review of that case on may twenty first so the decision is now final at page thirteen eighteen cause of action for wrongful constructive discharge accordingly the fact is terminations can occur under california law while an employee is still nominally on the payroll either your client's request to pre term a nation hearing no your honor they did not request to create terminations here and we offered that opportunity they were offered biased it which i'll go into pre term a nation hearings three and five months down the road after they were escorted off the premises peace officers in a show after the members of a member of the board of supervisors held a press conference in which he announced to the public that they had been fired and he generated as indicated in the appendix some rather lurid newspaper headlines which went on day after day i prefer the court to page one twenty five of the appendix which is very l to read either of your clients seek review by the california civil service commission there is no provision for they're not covered by california civil service news no provision for review outside of the county procedures which they did not invoke for reasons that i'll go into nine held that you get a mixed mode of instruction on sex discrimination to a jury of plaintiffs need not present direct evidence of discrimination merely a crime or face a case to get that far a rare unanimous place and is not utilized in a timely fashion is briefly held in part due process requires not only quote a fair trial in a fair trial you know but before a judge with no actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome of the particular case here both of the pre terminations hearing officers had an interest in the outcome of the particular case because it is presented in the briefing is i will argue further their continued job retention was dependent on their firing these plaintiffs that was stated this case is yet another is an unfortunate example of  of government toward the private property rights of individuals an example of the philosophy that government can do no wrong no matter how much individual rights or clout it is long as the government provides in a sensible but meaningless it ministre to morass for the am arguing that there was an impermissible delay in offering a pre term an asian hearing in a situation in which there was no pressing need to remove these people this is not a situation where there is a felony had been committed there is not a situation where they had committed a single wrongful act this was a situation in which they were eventually accused of generalized administrative derelictions such as not cooperate ing sufficiently  intemperate and inappropriate public statements but it has no basis in the record or in fact one indication this the defendants heavily censored in denigrate in their opposition brief the testimony the witness can believe thomas who supplied the smoking gun that fight the state and a defendant member of the board of supervisors member thompson but the county administrator johnson and it department director rowe to respect the hearing officers were required by th of supervisors to ensure that the plaintiffs were fired or they would be fight they were both that will political appointees and they had no stance of protections the full testimony of that disinterested plaintiffs were convicted from county premises that they the defendants falsely cast the position of the plane this is being that the mere escort was gender discrimination the discriminatory acts were a combination gets shown in the record the record shows that no males even those who stole from the county were ever treated in any fashion remotely close to this no males were even escorted by a civilian off county premises when they were told that they were terminated or suspended certainly not escorted off by police officers and having suspensions announced to the public in the press free terminations hearing that's not all right the county subsequently backtracked and said no they thought i thought it was making the announcement to the press which what was something that showed gender discrimination it wasn't done with respect to males in comparable situation comparable situations it has never been done with respect to male and there have been males for the record doesn't indicate with respect to other females the first their duties reasonably that there was no reason to take the action taken at the time it was and that people not in a protect the category were not treated the same those are basically the mcdonnell douglas criteria officer for any reason whatever political or otherwise thompson that were objected to on the basis of lack of foundation otherwise those objections are in the appendix the defendant's claim that the point that parsons was foreclosed from raising the real reasons for her terminations were not raised found below if any should read more closely the points were raised in the opposition's down below it's well page twelve sixteen twenty one in page thirteen twenty four two thriftiness five which are independent the defendants and regularly in the state with respect to parsons that there was a promise that the tenant johnson who the defendants conceded to be involved in the terminations would not be the hearing officer however they do not commendably perjure themselves on that there was opposing attorney could take to court on this matter the county finally ineptly named johnson or anyone in his total control as the hearing officer instead of giving the task to the state office differently on the basis of sex and it was inappropriate factual determination for the district court to decide that the events occurred solely for political reasons   it did not count as sick leave in the winter so they were paid they were put on paid administrative leave right that's correct ok for three and five months with no pre term a nation hearing at a time when they're getting paid for three to five months f the great deal that the court is implying it might be that their reputations were totally colley they had to interact with members of the community who had the mistaken impression that they had done something wrong with respect to the missing child now this was not a vacation in any sense they were both offered a pre term a nation hearing conducted by an officer from outside the county  something would be impartial or chosen in impartial fashion or chosen in the fashion that the california supreme court indicates the hof case is appropriate when there's any kind of conflict within the county they were both told that they appeal to the county civil service commission right no there were two different procedures the procedure for parsons was that she had only a unitary hearing before johnson or somebody in johnson absolute discretion the procedure for early who was covered by civil service procedure was that she first had a pre the right to a pre term a nation hearing before her supervisor who had been threatened that if he did not fire her he would be himself fired so while a three term nation hearing the for a biased hearing officer may be permissible and in fact it normally happens if supervisor will conduct the pre term a nation hearing a pre term a nation hearing before somebody who is not only biased but is totally rigid against even listening to what is said because he has a person interest in the outcome that is he will be fired he has been told that by a member of the board of supervisors that the testimony that the board that he really thomas quoted the member of the board of supervisors the free terminations hearing under  were not in a criminal nature correct that a later newspaper article monday morning there was a bunch of the sunday paper had reported they had been far the sunday paper reported a been fired in that same account what the member of the board of supervisors told virtually to the sleep told the press which was that they had been terminated and i had the course indulgence for a few more minutes signed up so good morning or afternoon depending on whether that clock is a minute right or faster honest and if it pleases the court this case is really quite simple has as we indicated in our briefing before the court this is principally about procedural due process the county had in place procedures that protected both of these individual employees those procedures are not challenge here in terms of their facial adequacy to protect the plaintiffs due process rights they were offered the opportunity to appear at hearings they refused that opportunity that is the end of the case in a nutshell the plaintiffs defacto terminations theory is something that is that heretofore unrecognized certainly not in the context of a procedural due process case where the question is whether or not there has been a deprivation of property without affording some some sort of procedural protections the case law is fairly clear that the merely placing an employee on leave with pay does not impact the property interest there is a litany of cases to that effect the pre term a nation hearing required by the supreme court and loudermilk for public employees who are protected as these two employees were is it's a requirement that these hearing take place before the terminations go form that take what occurred is it was a letter of speech it was needing between plaintiff's counsel mr lustig and the county council dennis bunting and it was a meeting that followed soon with respect to mr parsons that ms mr parsons hearing would be conducted by an individual designated by the county administrative officer from outside the county and the reason for that is there is a difference between the two types of procedures that applied to the two different plaintiffs just harsens was a management level employee as a management level employee she was only entitle to one shot and one shot only so the sort of truncated ladder mill in california they refer to it as a scale hearing which is a site which is based on a california case some of you may not be familiar with the terminology skelly versus state department personnel but that's scary hearing type requirement where you where you go before your boss you're appointing authority wouldn't be sufficient because with respect to parsons there was no post terminations remedy available to her so the county administrative officer or plaintiff's counsel was informed during this meeting that the here and you are not entitled to where there is a post germination remedy available you are simply not entitled to an unbiased hearing officer and there are several reasons for that first of all it works it works in almost and it creates an unworkable say well that person had an emotional interest vested interest in seeing to it that i'm fired and therefore they're not sufficiently unbiased in my critique from a nation here and therefore violated my due process but your brother contention that the because there's again no requirement for an unbiased hearing officer second i don't believe that the record adequately supports that accusation in the deposition testimony of kimberly thomas that is the  if that's a tribal issue of fact perhaps and that would be sufficient to get a jury i don't believe that that is because the state of the law is not that doesn't require gombau to be unbiased as a hearing officer is that the plaintiffs are ms parsons with then not be justified in saying i don't have to part that's a sham that would be an unnecessary waste of time therefore i'm not going to participate in that hearing process nified school district case makes abundantly clear that in a case such as this somebody who was trying to avoid the requirements of participating in ministry of process and  or some pre decision by the killing officer and there simply is no evidence to support that contention in this case and that really is the notch of the entire case because plaintiffs i think if you break accounts and by the way looking at these present it's clear to me that this is an example of sloppy journalism that somehow has made its way into a claim before this court because there's there's a supposedly confirming but the press accounts are their focus on this is not a fair trial matter is in discussions with the principals i e family of the victim and members of a foundation related that was created by the family members of the victim who were interviewed or appeared to have been interviewed by these reporters the quotations attributed to the to the county personnel were all very clear john a fair trial matter was played a very small role in this they say that it  was sponsored to and that is it appeared cavalier to him and that is in the record in that his concern was their response not necessarily that they had done something wrong in that individual particular single event so there isn't anything even the county personnel can't even be accused of connecting that up so the it is a continuing violation case but it does say that a constructive terminations occurs when there is a terminations of the employment as a result of harassing and abusive behavior  such terminations occurred here until they chose not to forgo their administrative remedies and what's critical about this is there's nothing in the record there's not even an argument that's being made that the decision not to proceed forward with their administrative remedies was in any way reflected by or caused by this notion that they were subjected to all this for acid and it would be an intolerable working environment their arguments are we didn't participate in  which is the liberty interest claim i'll just address and very briefly in order to sustain a claim for deprivation of the liberty interest without due process you have to show some sort of public accusations seriously stigmatizing information in nature that impugns the credibility or the honesty the character and the morality of the employee here there's no evidence of that all there most these two plaintiffs as managers of the department could be accused of having mismanaged that apartment even grossly mismanaged that department that's not sufficient the law is clear on this circuit in the lore case magnates that clear as well as several other cases in so there really isn't a ross claim and besides they were entitled to a name clearing hearing the same procedural procedural protections that would have been available to them to protect their there are reporters transcripts saying they wrote exactly what they were told there in the appendix before the court they were told that these people were fired on that day now the  liberty implication here is that these people were fired publicly in a context in which it was attributed to their gerald actions with respect to the disappearance of a missing child that is a reflection on their character thank you