## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### A u gu s t 3, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT M IC H A E L A N D R E W D A R R , P lain tiff

-A p p e llan t, v. T OWN OF T E L L UR I DE , CO L OR ADO, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 1227

A ppeal f rom t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt f or t he D i s t r i c t of

C ol or ado ( D . C . N o . 0 4 - C V - 0 1 1 4 9 - R P M) A ngel a L. E kkerof B arnhart , E kker& M cN al l y , L L P, E ngl ew ood, C ol or ado, for P lain tiff -A p p e llan t. J . An d r e w Na th a n ( Al l y s o n C. Ho d g e s wi th h i m o n th e b r i e f ) , o f Na th a n , Br e me r , Du mm & M y er s , P. C . , D enver , C ol or ado, forD efe ndant - A ppel l ee. B efor e M UR P HY , HOLL OW AY , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. HOLL OW AY , C i r cui tJ udge. P l a i n t i f f - Ap p e l l a n tM i c h a e l Da rrf i l e d a l a ws u i ta g a i n s tDe f e n d a n t - Ap p e l l e e T o wn o f T e llu ri d e , C o lo ra d o , in th e U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r t h e D is tr ic t o f

C o lo ra d o . D a rr ’s c o m p la in t a s s e rt e d s e v e ra l c la im s f o r r e lie f , in c lu d in g c la im s u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1983 that( 1) T el l ur i de vi ol at ed hi s pr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ght s w hen i tdepr i ved hi m of- 2-

hi s pr opertyi nt er es t s i n a pr e- t erm i nat i on hear i ng and cont i nued empl oym ent ; ( 2) T e llu rid e d e p riv e d h im o f h is c o n stitu tio n a lly -p ro tec ted lib e rtyin ter e st b yim p u g n in g h is good name and r eput at i on w i thoutpr ovi di ng a name- cl ear i ng hear i ng; and ( 3) T el l ur i de v io late d h is s u b sta n tiv e -d u e -p ro c e ss rig h ts b ya rb itrar ilya n d c a p ric io u slyter m in a tin g h is empl oym ent . D arr ’ s four th cl ai m underr evi ew her e s ounds i n s t at e l aw : ( 4) T el l ur i de b re a c h e d a n im p lied c o n tra c t w ith D a rr b yter m in a tin g h im w ith o u t ca u se a n d w ith o u t a p re -t e rm in a tio n h e a ri n g . In a n o ra l ru lin g , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt g ra n te d T e llu ri d e ’s s u m m a ry-ju d g m e n t m o tio n . A ppx. , V ol . I I , at774- 778. See Fed. R . C i v. P. 56. D arrnow appea l s . W e have j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we a f f i r m. I . BA CKGROUND The Tow n’s P ol i ci es T el l ur i de hi r ed M i chae l D arras a deputym ar s hal on D ece m ber22, 2001, s t at i ng thatD arrw as “appoi nt ed and e m pl oy ed i n acc or dance w i th the Tow n of Tel l ur i de P e rs o n n e l P o lic ie s a n d P ro c e d u re s , a n d th e E th ic s C o d e . . . .” A p p x ., V o l. I , a t 2 8 6 . T h ese p o li cies p rov ided em p loy ee s w ith the o p p o rtu n ityfo r no ti ce an d a h ea ri n g b ef o re h av ing their em p loym en t t erm inated . A p p x . , V o l. II, at 50 7 -08 . B u t th e m an u al D arr recei ved st at ed “U nd ergoi ng R evis i on ” on i t s cover and i nfo rm ed it s r eaders that “[t ]hese pol i ci es and pr ocedur es ar e noti nt ended t o s erve as an empl oym entcontr actbetw een the T o w n a n d a n yT o w n e m p lo y e e .” Id . a t 4 5 5 , 4 6 9 . O n J une 19, 2002, T el l ur i de not i fi ed i t s empl oy ees thati tw as changi ng i t s exi s t i ng- 3-

pol i ci es and pr ovi ded them w i th a dr aftof the pr opos ed pol i ci es . T he l ett er acc om pany i ng the new pol i ci es s t at ed that“[t ] he manual i s a compl et e r ew r i t e and r evampi ng of the or i gi nal pol i cy . . . . Y ouri nputi s es s ent i al . Pl eas e t ake the t i m e t o r ead the dr aftand forw ar d anycomm ent s orques t i ons t o Susa n no l at erthan Thurs . J une 27 9 :00 am . (If y o u p ref

er, give m e a ca ll o r st o p b ythe o ff ice.) ” A p p x . , V o l. I, at 19 3 . In bol d, l ar ge font , the l ett eral s o not i fi ed the t ow n s t aff of an upc om i ng m eet i ng aboutt he n e w p o licie s: “ A B o a rd M e e tin g w ill b e h e ld M o n d a y [ ,] Ju ly1 to C o n sid e r A ll C om m ent s . E m pl oy ees W ho W i s h t o Speak w i th the B oar d ar e I nvi t ed and Encour aged to C o m e to R e b e k a h H a ll M O N D A Y [ ,] J U L Y 1 a t 1 0 :3 0 A M . S e e Y o u T h e re .” Id . ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . T he l ett erconcl uded bynot i ng thatthe fi nal ver s i on of the p o lic ie s w o u ld b e b ro u g h t to th e T o w n C o u n c il f o r a d o p tio n o n J u ly 9 . Id . T el l ur i de di d notr ecor d m i nut es of the J ul y1, 2002, m eet i ng, butt ow n empl oy ees s ubm i t t ed af

fi davi t s s t at i ng thatthe meet i ng w as hel d and thata di s cus s i on of the dr aft pol i ci es t ook pl ace . A ppx. , V ol . I I , at723, 730. T her e i s no evi dence thatD arratt ended th e m e e tin g o r o th e rw ise m a d e a n yc o m m e n ts a b o u t th e n e w p o licie s. A f ter h o ld in g th is m e e tin g , T e llu ri d e a d o p te d th e n e w p o lic ie s b yre s o lu tio n o n J u ly 2 3 , 2 0 0 2 . A l though T el l ur i de’ s l ett erof J une 19, 2002, corr ect l ynot es thatthe new pol i ci es s ubs t ant i al l yr evi s ed the ol d pol i ci es ( e. g. , the new pol i ci es el i m i nat ed the pr e- t erm i nat i on h e a rin g re q u ire m e n t im p o se d b yth e o ld p o licie s), th e n e w p o licie s w e re su b sta n tially sim ilar in a t lea st o n e re sp e c t: i n b o ld p rin t, th e n e w p o licie s s tate th a t

[t ] he pol i ci es i n t hi s m anual ar e noti nt ended a nd s hal l notbe- 4- cons trued t o ves tanyempl oy ee of the Tow n w i th anyr i ght s ar i s i ng f r o m a n ye x p r e s s o ri mp l i e d c o n tr a c to f e mp l o yme n t . T h e T o wn re se rv e s th e rig h t to c h a n g e o r re sc in d th e se p o licie s, a n d to d e te rm in e th e a p p lic a tio n o f th e s e p o lic ie s to s p e c if ic c ir c u m s ta n c e s . T h e T o w n f

u rth e r re se rv e s th e rig h t to a lter o r e lim in a te a n yb e n e f its pr ovi ded t o i t s empl oy ees . A nyal t er at i on, el i m i nat i on, orr evi s i on m a yb e m a d e a p p lic a b le to th e n -c u rr e n t a s w e ll a s f u tu re e m p lo y e e s . A p p x ., V o l. I , a t 1 2 2 . T h e n e w p o licie s a lso sta te o n se v e ra l o c c a sio n s th a t em p lo ym e n t w ith T e llu rid e is t e r mi n a b l e a t - wi l l . I d . F o re x a mp l e , th e p o l i c i e s s t a t e th a t“ [ e ] mp l o yme n twi th th e T o wn o f T e llu ri d e is ‘a t- w ill[ .]’ A n ye m p lo y e e m a yb e te rm in a te d w ith o r w ith o u t c a u s e , a s t at ementof r eas ons , ora hea r i ng, j us tas anyempl oy ee mayr es i gn atanyt i m e, forany r eas on. N othi ng i n t hes e pol i ci es i s i nt ended t o m odi fythe Tow n’ s at - w i l l empl oym ent pol i ci es . ” I d. T el l ur i de al s o r equi r ed i t s empl oy ees t o s i gn a s t at ementacknow l edgi ng th a t th e yu n d e rsta n d th is la n g u a g e :

I have r ece i ved a c opyof the Tow n of Tel l ur i de Per s onnel Pol i ci es a n d P ro c e d u re s M a n u a l an d I u n d e rsta n d it i s m yre sp o n sib ili tyto r ead a nd compl yw i th t hi s documentand anys ubs equent a me n d me n t s . I f

u r th e ru n d e r s t a n d th a te mp l o yme n twi th th e T o wn of Tel l ur i de i s “at - w i l l [. ] ” A nyempl oy ee maybe t erm i nat ed w i th or w i thoutcaus e, a s t at ementof r eas ons , ora hea r i ng, j us tas any em ploy ee m ayres i gn atanyt i m e, for anyreas on . N othi ng i n these p o lic ie s is in te n d e d to m o d if yth e T o w n ’s a t- w ill e m p lo ym e n t p o lic y . [ S ig n a tu re lin e ]. A p p x ., V o l. I , a t 1 2 1 . T he pol i ci es al s o m ade e m pl oy ees aw ar e thattheyw er e at - w i l l empl oy ees re g a rd les s o f

h o w T e llu rid e h a n d led th e ir ter m in a tio n : “[ e ]m p lo ym e n t w ith th e T o w n is ter m in a b le a t-w ill . A n ye m p lo y e e m a yb e d isc h a rg e d w ith o r w ith o u t ca u se , at th e so le di s cr et i on of and upon not i ce f r om the Tow n M anage r . I n m os tcas es , how ever , di s m i s s al- 5-

w i l l occurupon a w r i t t en N ot i ce of D i s m i s s al . . . det ai l i ng the ci r cumst ance s pr om pt i ng the d i sci pli naryact i on . . . . ” Id. at13 2. T he p oli ci es’ adm on i t i on that “[n]othing i n these pol i ci es i s i nt ended t o m odi fythe Tow n’ s at - w i l l empl oym entpol i cy , ” i d. at121, under s cor es the pol i ci es ’ cl eareff ect : T el l ur i de coul d t erm i nat e empl oy ees atw hat ever tim e a n d f

o r w h a tev e r re a so n it sa w f it, e v e n th o u g h in “ m o st c a se s” T e llu rid e w o u ld n o tif ya n e m p lo y e e w h yh e o r s h e w a s b e in g f ir e d . T e llu ri d e f

u rn is h e d D a rr w ith a c o p yo f th e n e w p o lic ie s a f

te r t h e yw e re a d o p te d . D arradmi t t ed r evi ew i ng the new pol i ci es and s i gni ng the i ntr oduct i on and acknow l edgmentform des cr i bed above . A ppx. , V ol . I , at229. D arral s o under s t ood t hat the n ew p o li cies su p erse d ed the o ld p o li cies, an sw ering “tha t’ s a g iven ” w h en T ell u ri d e’s couns el as ked hi m a ques t i on t o t hi s eff ect . I d. at106. T he C i t izens A dvis ory B oa rd O n Jan u ary2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , T ell u ri d e a d o p ted a reso luti o n cre ati n g the C it izen s A d v isory B oar d ( “C A B ”) . I d. at321. C A B ’ s funct i on w as t o fac i l i t at e comm uni cat i on betw een T el l ur i de and i t s ci t i zens and t o r ai s e aw ar enes s aboutheal th and s afe tyi s s ues aff ect i ng th e c o m m u n ity . Id . at 3 2 2 . C A B w a s c o m p o se d o f to w n -a p p o in ted c o m m u n ity vol unt eer s and di d nothave pol i cy , l egi s l at i ve, di s ci pl i nary , ors upervi s orypow erover T el l ur i de’ s deci s i ons . I d. at323- 24. C onver s el y , al though T el l ur i de dr aft ed and a dopt ed C A B ’s m iss io n sta tem e n t, w h ich in c lu d e d o b jec tiv e s s u c h a s m a k in g re c o m m e n d a tio n s to th e T o w n c o n c e rn in g m a rsh a l p o licie s, T e llu rid e d id n o t o f f e r C A B g u id a n c e o n h o w to conducti t s oper at i ons . Forexampl e, the t ow n m ay orw hen the C A B w as cr eat ed- 6-

t e s t i f i e d th a tCA B l a c k e d o p e r a t i n g p r o c e d u r e s a n d th a tT e l l u r i d e n e v e ri n s tru c t e d CA B a b o u t h o w to c o n d u c t its o p e ra tio n s . Id . a t 2 4 6 , 2 4 7 . T h e to w n m a y o r d e sc rib e d C A B ’s a u th o rityin th e n e g a tiv e : “[ t]h is w a s n o t a l egi s l at i ve orpubl i c pol i cyboar d, had no author i ty . A nd . . . i ti s nota pol i ce c om m i s s i on th a t in v e stig a tes w h e th e r O f f ice r X sh o u ld o r sh o u ld n o t h a v e sh o t so -a n d -so a s h e lef t h is apart m entcarr y i ng an A R 16. ” I d. at248. D arr ’ s couns el as ked the form erm ay or w hether“i t[w as ] partof the di s cus s i on [w hen cr eat i ng the C A B ] thatthe C A B w oul d be in v o lv e d in a n yd isc ip lin a rya c tio n s o f p o lice o f

f ice rs[ .]” H e re p lied : “[ i]t ce rta in lyw o u ld n o t b e .” Id . The E vent s P r eci pi tat i ng D ar r ’s Ter m i nat i on O n F eb rua ry2 5 , 2 0 0 3 , C A B m et t o d iscu ss se v era l t o p ics co n ce rnin g T ell u ri d e’s pol i ci ng m ethods . A ppx. , V ol . I , at326. Sever al ci t i zens compl ai ned, and D arrw as one o f th e m arsh als i d en ti fied . Id. at 18 4 . D arr all eg es th at C A B ’s ch airm an stat ed that D arr “had l eft[hi s ] pr evi ous empl oym entunder‘ s us pi ci ous ci r cumst ance s [, ] ’ that[he] had i m pr oper l ydi s pl ay ed a ha ndgun ata gol f cour s e and that[he] had ‘ poache d’ ors t ol en a g a m e o f g o lf.” A p p x ., V o l. I I, a t 5 2 4 . T el l ur i de r ece i ved s ever al ot hercompl ai nt s aboutD arr ’ s conduct . Forexampl e, the f o rm er m ay o r t esti fied that restau ran t and b ar o w n ers c o m p lai n ed that D arr i nt i m i dat ed thei rcus t om er s and thathe per form ed barchec ks “i n a veryr ough and abus i ve manner . ” A ppx. , V ol . I , at238. O ther s compl ai ned thathe “c r eat ed pandemoni um ” i n anotherr es t aur antand thathe i m pr oper l ys ear ched ori nt err ogat ed a- 7-

w om an w ho had j us tfal l en outof a w i ndow . I d. M or eover , the t ow n m anage rt es t i fi ed that h e re ce ived sev era l com p lai n ts ab o u t D arr an d that “itb ec am e o b v iou s tha t [D arr] h a d a d if f icu lt t im e c o m m u n ica tin g a n d in ter a c tin g w ith a g o o d c h u n k o f th e p u b lic o f

th is c o m m u n ity.” Id . a t 3 6 7 . C A B ’ s chai r m an aga i n m ade D arr ’ s contr over s i al pol i ci ng m ethods a t opi c of di s cus s i on i n a l ocal r adi o br oadca s t . A ft erbei ng as ked aboutthe var i etyof al l egat i ons a g a in st D a rr, th e c h a irm a n e x p lain e d : “[ o ]v e rz e a lo u s, c o n tro lli n g , u h , a lo t o f c iv il righ ts vi ol at i ons i n m yopi ni on, i l l egal s ear ches and s ei zur es , uh, try i ng t o be an unde r covercop, s i t t i ng i n bar s pr et endi ng he’ s a ca bl e guyand try i ng t o geti nform at i on on the drug a c tiv ity in to w n , u h , th in g s o f th a t n a tu re .” A p p x ., V o l. I I, a t 6 6 0 (e rr o rs in o ri g in a l) . A ccor di ng t o D arr , the ai r i ng of thes e fa l s e al l egat i ons i m pugned hi s r eput at i on, h o n o r, an d in teg rity . O n th e c o n tra ry , T e llu rid e c o n ten d s th a t m a n yo f th e se c o m p lain ts corr es pond t o D arr ’ s har d- nos ed pol i ci ng m ethods . Forexampl e, T el l ur i de as s ert s that the chi ef mar s hal w arned D arrthatengagi ng i n hi gh- pr ofi l e, aggr es s i ve, and over zea l ous p o lic in g w o u ld re d u c e D a rr ’s e f f e c tiv e n e s s a s a d e p u ty. A p le e . B r. a t 1 0 . F o llo w in g th e se se v e ra l co m p lain ts a n d a w e ll-k n o w n p riv a te c iti z e n ’s c o m p lain t, w hi ch the ci t i zen c i r cul at ed t o T el l ur i de and the medi a, the chi ef mar s hal pl ace d D arron admi ni s tr at i ve l eave pendi ng the out come of an i nves t i gat i on. Par tof the i nves t i gat i on ul t i m at el yr evea l ed thatD arrvi ol at ed a de part m ent al rul e r equi r i ng m ar s hal s t o r es pect o thers. A p p x . , V o l. I, at 35 9 . S p ec ifi ca ll y , “the re a re g rou n d s to b eli ev e tha t D ep u tyD arr w as overbear i ng and rude i n t he exe cut i on of the fi r s tw arni ng pr ovi ded t o [the ci t i zen- 8-

m aki ng the compl ai nt ] . ” I d. at358. O n Ju ly2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , the c h ief m arsh al sen t D arr a lett er term inating D arr’s empl oym entw i th T el l ur i de. I d. at389. T he l ett erexpl ai ned thatal though D arrhad “p erf o rm ed ad m ir ab lyo n a n u m b er o f f ron ts, ” the re w ere o ther ti m es w h en D arr’s c o n d u c t“ r e s u l t e d i n c o u n s e l i n g f o rl e s s th a n a c c e p t a b l e p e r f o r m a n c e . ” I d . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, the chi ef w as tr oubl ed byD arr ’ s “j udgm ent , t one and de m eanor ” w hen handl i ng a s ear ch of a s us pi ci ous i ndi vi dual and a s epar at e D U I i nves t i gat i on, dur i ng w hi ch D arrvi ol at ed a d e p a rtm e n tal ru le. Id . T h e c h ief a lso q u e stio n e d D a rr’s ju d g m e n t o n o th e r o c c a sio n s: Y o u h a v e b e e n a w a re th a t th e re h a s b e e n a n u n d e rc u rre n t o f h o stility d e v e lo p in g to w a rd y o u b yc e rta in se g m e n ts o f th e c o m m u n ityin r ece ntm onths . T hi s att i tude has become part i cul ar l ypr eval ent f o llo w in g [ c e rta in a rre sts y o u p a rticip a ted in ]. In sp ite o f th is know l edge, y ou r ece nt l ychos e t o s oci al i ze i n a l i quores t abl i s hm ent aft ercompl et i ng an ea r l y - adj us t ed s hi ft . Y ourpl ai ncl othes pr es ence i n t he barant agoni zed the ow ner s of the es t abl i s hm entand they r eques t ed [that ] y ou l eave the pr emi s es . . . . I have t o ques t i on the j udgm entthatw as us ed i n y ours el ect i on of the af t er - s hi ft“w at er i ng h o le ” o n th is o c c a s io n . In s tin c tiv e ly, k n o w in g w h a t yo u k n o w , I w o u ld lik e to th in k th a t b e tte r j u d g m e n t w o u ld h a v e p re v a ile d . Id . a t 3 9 0 . Fi nal l y , the crux of the chi ef’ s deci s i on s eems t o have be en thatD arr ’ s over zea l ous pol i ci ng m ethods had ant agoni zed the comm uni tyt o the poi ntw her e D arrcoul d no l onger e f f e c tiv e lyp e rf

o rm h is jo b . T h e c h ief

e x p lain e d : I have s t at ed r epea t edl y. . . thatan aggr es s i ve and he avy - handed demeanorw i l l notw or k i n thi s comm uni ty . R egr ett abl y , a l abel has been a t t ache d t o y ou i n t hi s r egar d. I ti s m ybel i ef thati ti s r ender i ng y o u r ab il ityto ef

fe cti v elyp erf

o rm y o u [sic] ro le fo r th e M arsh al’s D ep artm en t no n -ex ist en t, w ith n o p rosp ec t of im p rov em en t. In addi t i on, y ouract i ons have a dver s el yaff ect ed the publ i c per cept i on- 9- o f th e D e p a rtm e n t an d I a m n o t o p tim istic th a t th e situ a tio n w ill c h a n g e . I d. D a rr te stif

ied th a t h e a g re e d w ith th is a ss e ss m e n t o f h is in a b ili tyto e f

f e c tiv e lyp e rf

o rm h is dut i es i n T el l ur i de and thatthe chi ef mar s hal acc ur at el ydes cr i bed the publ i c’ s per cept i on: “I bel i eve I part i ci pat ed i n t hatper cept i on, buti tw as n’ ts ol el ym i ne. . . . O ffi cer M e rr im a n [ p a rt ic ip a te d in th a t p e rc e p tio n a s w e ll.] ” Id . a t 1 0 9 . A s ex p lai n ed ab o v e, D arr then fil ed this fed era l l aw su it , w h ich th e d istri ct co u rt di s m i s s ed bygr ant i ng T el l ur i de’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent( ther ebyal s o di s m i s s i ng D arr ’ s s t at e- l aw cl ai m s ) . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, appl y i ng the s ame l egal s t andar d us ed bythe di s tr i ctcourt . Si m m s v. O kl a. ex r el D ep’ tof M ent al H ea lth & S u b stan ce A b u se S erv s. , 1 6 5 F . 3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 2 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). S u m m ary j udgm enti s appr opr i at e “i f the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th t he af fi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . W hen appl y i ng thi s s t andar d, w e vi ew the evi dence and d r a w r e a s o n a b l e i n f

e r e n c e s th e r e f

r o m i n th e l i g h tm o s tf

a v o r a b l e t o th e n o n m o v i n g p a r ty. S i mm s , 1 6 5 F . 3 d a t1 3 2 6 . I f th e r e i s n o g e n u i n e i s s u e o f ma t e r i a l f

a c ti n d i s p u t e , we det erm i ne w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l yappl i ed the s ubs t ant i ve l aw . K aul v. S teph an , 8 3 F . 3 d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 1 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ).- 10- A . P roced u ral D u e P rocess “The r equi r ement s of pr ocedur al due pr oces s appl yonl yt o the depr i vat i on of i nt er es t s encompas s ed bythe Four t eenth A m endment ’ s pr ot ect i on of l i bertyand p ro p e rty .” B d . o f

R e g e n ts v . R o th , 4 0 8 U .S . 5 6 4 , 5 6 9 (1 9 7 2 ). W h e n a S tate se e k s to ter m in a te a p ro tec ted p ro p e rtyin ter e st, th e rig h t to n o tice a n d o p p o rtu n ityf o r a h e a rin g is u su all yp ara m o u n t. Id. at 56 9 -70 , 5 7 0 n . 7 . A lth o u g h thes e d em an d s o f d u e p roc ess a re o f ten re lativ e lyc lea r, th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r a n e m p lo y e e h a s a p ro tec ted in ter e st in empl oym enti s l es s s o. T he Supr eme C our thas s t at ed thatpr opertyi nt er es t s ar e not cr eat ed bythe C ons t i tut i on, butbyexi s t i ng rul es orunder s t andi ngs thats t em from in d e p e n d e n t so u rc e s, “ su c h a s s tate law -ru les o r u n d e rsta n d in g s th a t se c u re c e rta in b e n e f its a n d th a t s u p p o rt c la im s o f e n title m e n t to th o s e b e n e f its .” Id . a t 5 7 7 . T o cr eat e a pr opertyi nt er es t , the s t at e- l aw rul e orunder s t andi ng m us tgi ve the r eci pi ent“a l egi t i m at e cl ai m of ent i t l ementt o [the bene fi t ] . ” I d. Forexampl e, an e m p lo y e e m a yp o s s e s s a p ro p e rt yin te re s t in p u b lic e m p lo ym e n t if s h e h a s te n u re , a contr actfora fi xed t erm , an i m pl i ed pr om i s e of c ont i nued empl oym ent , ori f s t at e l aw al l ow s di s m i s s al onl yforcaus e ori t s equi val ent . See i d. at576- 77; B i s hop v. W ood, 426 U .S . 3 4 1 , 3 4 4 (1 9 7 6 ); G re e n e v . B a rr e tt, 1 7 4 F .3 d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 4 0 -4 1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 1. W hat i nt ere s t di d D arr have i n a pre- t erm i nat i on heari ng? D arrar gues thatT el l ur i de vi ol at ed hi s Four t eenth A m endmentpr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ghtbyr evi s i ng i t s empl oy ee manual t o el i m i nat e hi s pr opertyi nt er es ti n a pr et erm i nat i on hear i ng w i thoutpr ovi di ng adequa t e not i ce. D arrs ay s i n hi s openi ng br i ef a t- 11-

35 thatT el l ur i de di d notdi r ect l ycomm uni cat e t o the empl oy ees , i ncl udi ng D arr , thatt hey w er e bei ng s tr i pped of “ thei rr i ght s of due pr oces s bythe ena ctm entof the new pol i ci es . ” I d. at35. D arral s o as s ert s thatw hetheran empl oy ee “ has a pr opertyi nt er es ti n cont i nued empl oym enti s a ques t i on of fa ctforthe j ury . ” A pl t . B r . at32. D arr ’ s att empt t o m anufa ctur e a di s put ed i s s ue of f acti s unper s uas i ve. T el l ur i de d o e s n o t a rg u e th a t D a rr h a d n o ri g h t to s u f f ic ie n t n o tic e o f

th e re v is e d p o lic ie s . D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llee ’s A n sw e r B rie f a t 1 3 . T e llu rid e a p p e a rs to c o n c e d e D a rr’s rig h t to s uffi ci entnot i ce a nd s ay s onl ythatD arrr ece i ved more than s uffi ci entnot i ce of the re v is e d p o lic ie s . Id . at 13 . T h e u n p u b li sh ed d ec isi o n in P errin v . E g g er, w h ich D arr r el i es upon i n hi s br i efs , r evi ew ed the s ame 1990 T el l ur i de pol i cyand hel d that“[t ] he l i m i t at i on on [the Tow n M anage r ’ s ] pow erof di s m i s s al i s thats he ca n m ake thatdeci s i on onl yaft erpr ovi di ng the empl oy ee w i th the hea r i ng r equi r ed by. . . the manual . T hus , t he p l a i n t i f f wa s e n t i t l e d t o a h e a r i n g a n d t o th a te x t e n t , h e h a d a n e n t i t l e me n td e s e r v i n g s o me degr ee of

pr ot ect i on, i . e. , the opportuni tyt o pr es enthi s cas e ata non- publ i c hea r i ng. ” A pl t . B r . atappx. B , p. 4. R egar dl es s , D arr ’ s ar gum ent

— thatthe j urym us tdeci de as a fa ctual ques t i on w h e th e r a n e m p lo y e e h a s a p ro p e rtyin ter e st in a p re -te rm in a tio n h e a rin g — w ro n g ly i m pli es that s um m aryj ud gm ent i s never app ropri at e w hen an em ploy ee bri ng s a p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s c la im . T he fa ct s her e ar e cl earand uncont es t ed. W e as s um e, beca us e i ti s notcont es t ed,“The St at e maychoos e t o r equi r e pr ocedur es forr eas ons otherthan pr ot ect i on 1 a g a in st d e p riv a tio n o f

su b sta n tiv e rig h ts, o f

c o u rse , b u t in m a k in g th a t ch o ice th e S tate does notcr eat e an i ndepende nts ubs t ant i ve r i ght . ” O l i m v. W aki nekona , 461 U . S. 238, 250- 51 ( 1983) ( footnot e omi t t ed) . W e have not ed that“an e nt i t l ementt o nothi ng but pr ocedur e . . . ‘ cannotbe the bas i s fora pr opertyi nt er es t . ’ ” R obbi ns v. U ni t ed Stat es B u r e a u o f L a n d M a n a g e m e n t, 438 F. 3d 1074, 1085 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Tow n of C a s tle R o c k

v . G o n z a le s , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 7 9 6 , 2 8 0 8 (20 0 5 )).

- 12- and w e do notaddr es s , w hetherD arrhad a pr opertyi nt er es ti n a pr e- t erm i nat i on hear i ng. 1 M or eoveri ti s unnece s s aryt o deci de thi s poi ntbeca us e w e conc l ude thatD arrdi d not h a v e a c o n s titu tio n a lly p ro te c te d in te re s t in c o n tin u e d e m p lo ym e n t. W e now turn t o t he ques t i on w hetherT el l ur i de’ s ol d ornew pol i ci es cr eat ed a c o n s titu tio n a lly-p ro te c te d in te re s t in D a rr f o r c o n tin u e d e m p lo ym e n t. 2. D i d T el l uri de’ s ol d or new pol i ci es cre at e a cons t i t ut i onal l y - prot ect ed inte re st i n co n ti n u ed em p loy m en t? A t - w i l l empl oy ees l ack a pr opertyi nt er es ti n cont i nued empl oym ent . B i s hop, 426 U . S. at345 n. 8, 345- 347. U nderC ol or ado l aw , an at - w i l l empl oy ee “ gener al l ym aybe d isc h a rg e d a t an ytim e w ith o u t ca u se o r f o rm a l p ro c e d u re .” J o h n so n v . Je f f e rso n C o u n ty B d . o f H e a lth , 6 6 2 P .2 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 1 (C o lo . 1 9 8 3 ) (e n b a n c ). “[ T ]h e tra d iti o n a l ru le w ith r es pectt o l ocal governm entempl oy ees has been that : ‘ [L]oc al governm entempl oy ees hol d thei rpos t s atthe pl eas ur e of the pr operl ocal governm entauthor i t i es and ca n be di s m i s s ed w i thoutcaus e, i n t he abs ence of r es tr i ct i ons orl i m i t at i ons pr ovi ded byl aw . ” F re m o n t R E -1 S c h . D is t. v . J a c o b s , 7 3 7 P .2 d 8 1 6 , 8 2 0 (C o lo . 1 9 8 7 ) ( e n b a n c ). D a rr a ss e rts th a t th e o ld p o licie s c re a ted a c o n stitu tio n a lly -p ro tec ted p ro p e rty i nt er es ti n hi s empl oym ent . B utD arrcannotpoi ntt o anypr ovi s i on i n the ol d pol i ci es t hat- 13-

w oul d confe rs uch an i nt er es t . H i s ar gum entthatthe ol d pol i ci es confe rcont i nuede m p lo ym e n t rig h ts u p o n f u ll-ti m e w o rk e rs is u n a v a ili n g , sin c e th e p o licie s d e f in e “ f u llt i m e” mer el yas an empl oy ee w ho s erved a s i x- m onth pr obat i onaryper i od and w ho now w or ks for tyhour s perw eek. A ppx. , V ol . I I , at479. T her e i s no evi dence i n the pol i ci es orotherw i s e thatcompl et i ng thi s s i x- m onth pr obat i onaryper i od tr ans form ed a Tel l ur i de empl oy ee f

r om an at - w i l l empl oy ee i nt o a t enur ed empl oy ee. I ndeed, the ol d pol i ci es e x p re ss lyd isa v o w th e e x iste n c e o f a n yc o n tra c tu a l re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e T o w n a n d its e m p lo y e e s. Id . at 4 6 9 . D a rr h a s f a iled to id e n tifya n yf

a c t o r re a so n w h yh e d o e s n o t f a ll w ith in C o lo ra d o ’s tr a d itio n a l ru le th a t lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t e m p lo y e e s a re e m p lo y e d a t- w ill. D arr ’ s pos i t i on thatthe new pol i ci es cr eat ed a pr opertyi nt er es ti n cont i nued e mp l o yme n ti s s i mi l a r l yu n p e r s u a s i v e . T h e n e w p o l i c i e s s t a t e i n g r e a td e t a i l th a tT o wn empl oy ees ar e empl oy ed at - w i l l and thatthe pol i ci es do notcr eat e an e m pl oym ent contr act . A ppx. , V ol . I , at121, 122, 132. D arr ’ s unr eas onabl e pos i t i on thathe thought “at - w i l l ” meant“forcaus e”— notw i ths t andi ng the new pol i ci es ’ cl eardefi ni t i on of the ter m “ a t-w ill ”

— is in su f f icie n t to ra ise a g e n u in e d isp u te o f m a ter ial f

a c t, m a k in g it a p p ro p ria te to d e c id e a s a m a tter o f law w h e th e r th e n e w p o licie s c re a ted a p ro p e rty in te re s t in c o n tin u e d e m p lo ym e n t. W e al s o r ej ectD arr ’ s ar gum entthatT el l ur i de’ s chi ef mar s hal cr eat ed a pol i cyand cus t om of t erm i nat i ng m ar s hal s onl yforcaus e. W hen Tel l ur i de fi r ed D arr , the oper at i ve pol i ci es m ade c l earthatD arrw as an at - w i l l empl oy ee r egar dl es s of how T el l ur i de handl ed hi s t erm i nat i on: “[e ] m pl oym entw i th the Tow n i s t erm i nabl e at - w i l l . A ny- 14-

empl oy ee maybe di s char ged w i th orw i thoutcaus e, atthe s ol e di s cr et i on of and upon not i ce f r om the Tow n M anage r . I n m os tcas es , how ever , di s m i s s al w i l l occurupon a w ri tt en N o ti ce o f D ism issal . . . d etail ing the c ir cu m stan ce s p rom p ti n g the d isci p li n ary a c tio n . . . . ” Id . at 1 3 2 . A s e x p lain e d a b o v e , the p o licie s’ a d m o n iti o n th a t “[ n ]o th in g in thes e pol i ci es i s i nt ended t o m odi fythe Tow n’ s at - w i l l empl oym entpol i cy , ” i d. at121, under s cor es the pol i ci es ’ cl eareff ect : T el l ur i de coul d t erm i nat e empl oy ees w i thoutcaus e, even though i n “mostcas es ” Tel l ur i de w oul d not i fyan empl oy ee w hyhe ors he w as b e in g f ir e d . T o be s ur e, ourpr ece dents uppor t s the pr opos i t i on thata t ow n’ s conductm ay negat e the expr es s di s cl ai m er s i n i t s empl oym entm anual , ther ebycr eat i ng a di s put ed fa ct a s to w h e th e r th e to w n a n d its e m p lo y e e s’ m u tu a l u n d e rsta n d in g s c re a ted a p ro p e rty interest. S ee , e.g., K ing sfo rd v . S altL ak e C ityS ch . D ist . , 2 4 7 F . 3 d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 3 2 (10 th C ir . 2001) ( fi ndi ng s uch a di s put ed fa cti n the pr ocedur al due pr oces s cont ext ) . B utagai n, ther e i s no evi dence thatthi s occurr ed her e. A l though the chi ef mar s hal t es t i fi ed thathe had neve rfi r ed any one w i thoutcaus e— “w hyw oul d [he] w antt o . . . , ” he a s ked rh e to ric a llyin h is d e p o sitio n — th e p o licie s u n e q u iv o c a llye x p lain th a t D a rr w a s a n a t-w ill empl oy ee r egar dl es s of how T el l ur i de handl ed hi s t erm i nat i on. T he chi ef mar s hal f o llo w e d th is p a rt o f

th e h a n d b o o k e x a c tly a s D a rr c o u ld h a v e e x p e c te d . A s a m a tter o f

p o licy , T e llu rid e p e rsu a siv e lya rg u e s th a t w e sh o u ld n o t re q u ire it t o ra n d o m ly f

ir e e m p lo y e e s to m a in ta in its c le a rl ye x p la in e d a t- w ill e m p lo ym e n t p o lic y . D arr ’ s pr opos ed rul e— the mer e fa ctthatthe chi ef mar s hal t erm i nat ed fi ve empl oy ees for- 15-

cause n egates the T ow n’s express po l i cythat em ploy ees ar e em ploy ed at- w i l l regar dles s o f h o w th e ya re ter m in a ted

— w o u ld p lay ha v o c w ith T e llu rid e ’s r e latio n sh ip w ith its empl oy ees . T el l ur i de w oul d have the perver s e i ncent i ve t o r andoml yfi r e i t s empl oy ees w ith o u t ca u se in a n e f

f o rt to m a in tain its a t-w ill e m p lo ym e n t p o licya n d a v o id law su its lik e th is o n e (a d ilem m a f o r T e llu rid e b e c a u se th is e f f o rt w o u ld p o ten tiallye x p o se it t o ev en m o re li ab il ity ). A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t hatD arrdi d nothave a pr opertyi nt er es ti n cont i nued empl oym entw i th T el l ur i de. 3. D i d D ar r r e c e i ve ade quat e not i c e and o ppor t uni t y t o be he ar d? S i nce w e assum e, w i tho ut deci ding, that the o l d p oli ci es cr eat ed a p ropertyi nter est i n a pr e- t erm i nat i on hear i ng, the ques t i on pr es ent ed i s tw o- fol d. Fi r s t , w e as k w hethert he di s tr i ctcourti m pr oper l yr es ol ved a ge nui ne di s put e of mat er i al fac tw hen i tdeci ded that T ell u ri d e re v ised it s o ld p o li cies a fter p rov iding su ff ici en t no ti ce an d o p p o rtu n ityfo r a h e a rin g . S e c o n d , if th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t re so lv e a g e n u in e d isp u te o f m a ter ial f

a c t, th e n w e m u s ta d d r e s s w h e th e rth e d i s tr i c tc o u r te rr e d b y g r a n t i n g T e l l u r i d e ’ s s u m m a r yju d g m e n t m o tio n . D arrexpl ai ns thatthe C ol or ado Supr eme C our ti n A dams C ountySch. D i s t . N o. 50 v. D i ckeyci t ed w i th appr oval M i chi gan l aw that“[a ] n empl oy erm ay , w i thoutan expr es s r es ervat i on of the r i ghtt o do s o, uni l at er al l ychange i t s w r i t t en pol i cyfr om one of di s char ge forcaus e t o one of t erm i nat i on atw i l l , pr ovi ded thatthe empl oy ergi ves aff ect ed empl oy ees r eas onabl e not i ce of the pol i cychange . ” 791 P. 2d 688, 693 ( C ol o.S e e n . 1 , s upr a. 2

- 16- 1 9 9 0 ). B o th p arti es lo o k to D u rt sch e v . A m erican C o ll o id C o . , 9 5 8 F . 2 d 1 0 0 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ), f o r a n e x p lan a tio n o f

“ re a so n a b le n o tice ,” b u t f a il t o re c o g n ize th a t D u rtsc h e o n ly a d d re ss e d h o w , u n d e r W y o m in g c o n tra c t law , a p riv a te e m p lo y e r c o u ld e f f e c tiv e ly m o d if ya n e m p lo ym e n t m a n u a l th a t a ls o c o n s titu te d a c o n tr a c t w ith its e m p lo y e e s . I ndeed, w e conc l uded i n D ur t s che thatal though W y om i ng contr actl aw al l ow ed an empl oy ert o change the t erm s of i t s empl oym entm anual w i thoutacc ept ance byand addi t i onal cons i der at i on t o i t s empl oy ees , s uch cha nges t o the manual m us tbe cons pi cuous . I d. at1009. O n t he i s s ue w hetherT el l ur i de af for ded D arrthe pr oces s he w as due underthe Four t eenth A m endment , how ever , the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on i s ourgui de. See 2 K i ngs for d, 247 F. 3d at1128 ( s t at i ng that“[w ] hi l e a pr opertyr i ghtcan onl ybe cr eat ed by s t at e l aw , once a pr opertyr i ghti s es t abl i s hed, the det erm i nat i on of w hatpr oces s i s due b e f o re th a t r ig h t c a n b e d e p ri v e d is a q u e s tio n a n s w e re d b yth e f e d e ra l C o n s titu tio n ” ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t “[ a ]n e ss e n tial p rin c ip le o f d u e p ro c e ss is th a t a depr i vat i on of . . . pr operty‘ be pr ece ded bynot i ce a nd oppor tuni tyforhear i ng a pp r op r i a t e t o the na tur e of the c a s e . ’ ” Cl e ve l a nd Bd. of Educ . v. Loud e r mi l l , 47 0 U. S. 532, 542 ( 1985) . Speci fi cal l y , “not i ce mustbe of s uch natur e as r eas onabl yt o conveyt he r equi r ed i nform at i on, and i tm us taff or d a r eas onabl e t i m e forthos e i nt er es t ed t o m ake thei rappea r ance . ” M ul l ane v. C entr al H anoverB ank & T rus tC o. , 339 U . S. 306, 314D arr ’ s di s agr eementoverw hetherthe Tow n hel d the meet i ng does notcr eat e a 3 genui ne d isp u te o f

f a c t. D a rr a ss e rts in h is o p e n in g b rie f th a t “it d o e s n o t ap p e a r th a t a m eet i ng as r eferr ed to i n the m em orandu m w as hel d o n July1, 20 02 , i n w hich em ploy ees’ c o mme n t s o n th e Ne w Po l i c i e s we r e c o n s i d e r e d . ” Ap l t . Br . a t1 3 . Th i s i s th e o n l yt i me th a t D a rr m e n tio n s th is iss u e in h is o p e n in g b rie f , an d h e f

a ils to p ro v id e a n ye v id e n c e to s uppor thi s as s ert i on. I ndeed, D arr ’ s r epl ybr i ef a ctual l yi dent i fi es evi dence thatthe m ee ti n g o cc u rred , w ith o u t cou n teri n g w ith ev iden ce to the co n tr ary . S ee A p lt . R ep lyB r. at14- 15 ( r eci t i ng T ow n empl oy ees ’ t es t i m onythatthe meet i ng occurr ed and that“a di s cus s i on of the dr aftpol i ci es t ook pl ace ”) . D arr ’ s uns uppor t ed as s ert i on thatthe m e e tin g d id n o t o c c u r is in su f f icie n t to c re a te a g e n u in e d isp u te o f m a ter ial f

a c t.

- 17- (1950 ) ( ci t at i on s om i t t ed). T he p art i es here do n ot genuinel ydis pu t e t he fo l l ow i ng fact s: ( 1) T he ol d pol i ci es D arrr ece i ved cons pi cuous l ys t at ed thattheyw er e “U nder goi ng R evi s i on”; ( 2) T el l ur i de s entouta not i ce i ndi cat i ng thati tpl anned t o hol d a hea r i ng about the r evi s ed manual befor e adopt i ng i t ; ( 3) T el l ur i de’ s not i ce s t at ed thatthe r evi s ed manual compl et el yr ew r ot e and r evamped t he ol d pol i cy ; ( 4) T el l ur i de’ s not i ce pr ovi ded the hear i ng’ s dat e, l ocat i on, and t i m e; ( 5) T el l ur i de conduc t ed the publ i c hea r i ng r egar di ng the r evi s i ons ; ( 6) D arrhad the opportuni tyt o att end thi s m eet i ng t o as k ques t i ons and 3 m ake c om m ent s aboutthe r evi s ed pol i ci es ; ( 7) D arrdecl i ned t o att end the hea r i ng; ( 8) D arrs i gned a w r i t t en ac know l edgmentthathe r ece i ved, r ead, and under s t ood the r evi s ed pol i ci es ; and ( 9) D arr ’ s acknow l edgmentform s t at ed thatthe r evi s ed pol i ci es cr eat ed an at - w i l l empl oym entr el at i ons hi p and expl ai ned that“[a ] nyempl oy ee maybe t erm i nat ed w ith o r w ith o u t c a u s e , a s ta te m e n t o f re a s o n s , o r a h e a ri n g .” A p p x ., V o l. I , a t 1 2 1 . G i ven thes e undi s put ed fa ct s , w e fi nd no err ori n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s hol di ng that T e llu rid e a m e n d e d th e o ld p o licie s a f ter p ro v id in g D a rr w ith c o n stitu tio n a llya d e q u a te n o tice o f a n d o p p o rtu n ityf

o r a h e a rin g . T h e o n lya d d iti o n a l ste p th a t T e llu rid e c o u ld- 18-

h a v e tak e n w a s to e x p lain in its n o tice p re c ise lyh o w th e re v ise d p o licie s re w ro te th e o ld pol i ci es . B utthi s i s w hatthe hea r i ng w as for : i tdefi es the purpos e of not i ce t o i m pos e the bu rden on T el l uri de to exp l ai n in i t s not i ce of a he ar i ng exac t l yw hatthe s ubs tant i ve c h a n g e s to th e p o licym e a n t, es p e c iallyg iv e n th a t T e llu rid e ’s n o tice c lea rlysta ted th a t it c o m p lete lyre w ro te th e o ld p o licie s a n d th a t th e n e w p o licie s w o u ld b e d isc u ss e d f u llyin a n u p c o m in g h e a ri n g . I ti s i m por t antt o not e once agai n thatw e ar e notaddr es s i ng the ques t i on pr es ent ed i n D ur t s che— w hetherthe empl oy ee w as s uffi ci ent l yappr i s ed of the new pol i cyt o m ake i tenfor cea bl e as a bi ndi ng contr act . I ns t ead, w e ar e addr es s i ng the cons t i tut i onal q u e s tio n o f

w h e th e r T e llu ri d e p ro v id e d n o tic e a n d a h e a ri n g a p p ro p ri a te f o r t h is c a s e . A lth o u g h T ell u ri d e d id n o t em p loyev erytheo reti ca ll yco n ce ivab le m etho d to n o ti fyD arr, th e C o n s titu tio n d o e s n o t r e q u ir e m o re p ro c e d u re th a n th a t p ro v id e d h e re .

B. Li be r t y I nt e r e s t : N ame- C l e ar i ng H e ar i ng D a rr a rg u a b lyh a s a lib e rtyin ter e st in h is g o o d n a m e a n d re p u tatio n a s it re late d to hi s empl oym entw i th T el l ur i de. See M el t on v. C i tyof O kl a. C i ty , 928 F. 2d 920, 927 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (s tatin g th a t a p u b lic e m p lo y e e h a s a c laim f o r re lief “ [ w ]h e n a p u b lic empl oy ert akes act i on t o t erm i nat e an e m pl oy ee ba s ed upon a publ i c s t at ementof unfounded c har ges of di s hones tyori m m or al i tythatm i ghts er i ous l ydamage the em p loy ee ’s st an d ing o r asso ciati o n s in the co m m u n ityan d fo rec lose the e m p loy ee ’s f re e d o m to ta k e a d v a n ta g e o f f u tu re e m p lo ym e n t o p p o rt u n itie s . . . ” ). B utt o s t at e a c l ai m forr el i ef, D arrm us ts how how the governm ent i nfr i nged uponW e nee d notaddr es s thi s i s s ue furtherbeca us e, as w e di s cus s bel ow , D arr ’ s l egal 4 th e o ryf a ils to su p p o rt h is c o n c lu sio n th a t T e llu rid e c a n b e h e ld liab le f o r C A B ’s c o n d u c t.

- 19- h is a lleg e d lib e rtyin ter e st. W e h a v e e sta b lish e d a f o u r-p ro n g tes t f

o r re so lv in g th is q u esti o n : fi rst , the s tat em en ts m u st i m p u g n the e m p loy ee ’s go o d n am e, rep u tat ion , h o n o r, ori nt egr i ty ; s econd, the s t at ement s m us tbe fa l s e; thi r d, the s t at ement s m us toccuri n the cou rs e of term i nati ng the em ploy ee or m ustforecl ose other em ploym ent oppo rtun i t i es; and fourth, the s t at ement s m us tbe publ i s hed. W or km an v. J or dan, 32 F. 3d 475, 481 ( 10th C i r . 1994) . B uts ee Renaud v. W y om i ng D ept . of Fam i l ySer vi ces , 203 F. 3d 723, 728 n. 1 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( s ugges t i ng thatW or km an’ s thi r d el ements houl d have be en phr as ed conj unct i vel y : the s t at ementm us toccuri n the cour s e of t erm i nat i ng the empl oy ee and

m u st fo rec lose o ther e m p loym en t op p o rtu n it ies, co n tr aryto W o rkm an ’s d isj u n cti v e p h rasing ). 4 D arrdoes notas s ert , norcoul d he pl aus i bl y , thatthe chi ef mar s hal oranyother T ow n r epr es ent at i ve ( w i th t he pos s i bl e exc ept i on of the C A B m ember s ) m ade s t i gm at i zi ng s t at ement s abouthi m . T he chi ef mar s hal ’ s onl ycomm entt o the publ i c about D a rr w a s th a t h e w a s n o lo n g e r a T e llu ri d e e m p lo y e e , a p p x ., v o l. I , a t 1 1 2 -1 1 3 , a c o m m e n t w h ich is n o t su f f icie n t to su p p o rt D a rr’s c laim b e c a u se , fo r o n e th in g , itis n o t a fal s e s t at ement . T hus , the thr es hol d ques t i on i s w hetherC A B ’ s s t at ement s cons t i tut ed sta te a c tio n re d re ss a b le u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , as o p p o se d to p riv a te c o n d u c t b yp riv a te ci t i zens. U nles s T el l uri de can be h el d li able for C A B ’s con du ct , w e need no tadd res s w hetherD arrhas s at i s fi ed the fourW or km an fa ct or s orw hetherD arrr eques t ed a na m e-- 20-

cl ear i ng hear i ng. T o rec o v er u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 , D arr m u st sho w that C A B ac ted “ u n d er c o lor” o f s ta te la w — a te s t id e n tic a l to th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t’ s s ta te -a c tio n re q u ir e m e n t. L ugarv. E dm onds on O i l C o. , I nc. , 457 U . S. 922, 929 ( 1982) ( s t at i ng that“i ti s cl eart hat i n a § 1983 ac t i on br oughtagai ns ta s t at e off i ci al , the s t atut oryr equi r ementof ac t i on ‘u n d e r c o lo r o f

sta te la w ’ a n d th e ‘sta te a c tio n ’ re q u ire m e n t o f th e F o u rte e n th A m endmentar e i dent i cal ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Pr i ce, 383 U . S. 787, 794 n. 7 ( 1966) ( s t at i ng that“[i ] n cas es under§ 1983, ‘ undercol or ’ of l aw has cons i s t ent l ybeen tr eat ed as the s ame t hi ng as the ‘ s t at e ac t i on’ r equi r ed underthe Four t eenth A m endment ”) . W e have appl i ed thi s s t at e- act i on r equi r ementi n s ui t s agai ns tl ocal governm ent s evers i nce the Supr eme C our tpl ucked thes e muni ci pal i t i es ’ s hi el ds agai ns t§ 1983 l i abi l i ty . T he r eas on fordoi ng s o s t ems fr om § 1983’ s purpos e: “t o det ers t at e ac t or s fr om us i ng the badge of thei rauthor i tyt o depr i ve i ndi vi dual s of thei rfede r al l yguar ant eed r i ght s and t o pr ovi de re lie f to v ic tim s if

s u c h d e te rr e n c e f

a ils .” W y a tt v . C o le , 5 0 4 U .S . 1 5 8 , 1 6 1 (1 9 9 2 ). T h u s, p riv a te c o n d u c t, no m a tter h o w a tro c io u s, c a n n o t g ro u n d § 1 9 8 3 liab ili tya g a in st a s ta te e n tity. T he part i es s t ake outoppos i t e pos i t i ons on w hetherT el l ur i de maybe l i abl e for C A B ’ s conduct . T el l ur i de out l i nes s ever al fac t s t endi ng t o s how thatC A B ’ s conductm ay n o t b e a ttribu ted to T e llu rid e . In re sp o n se , D a rr id e n tifie s e v id e n c e a lleg e d ly demonstr at i ng thatal though C A B di d nothave a uthor i tyoverT el l ur i de, T el l ur i de had author i tyoverC A B

— s ugges t i ng thatC A B ’ s conductm aybe attr i but ed t o the Tow n. B ut- 21-

put t i ng as i de the mer i t s of thes e pos i t i ons , w e nee d notdeci de w hetherC A B act ed under c o lo r o f law b e c a u se e v e n if

T e llu rid e c o u ld b e h e ld re sp o n sib le f o r C A B ’s c o n d u c t, D a rr ’s le g a l th e o ry d o e s n o t s u p p o rt h is c la im f o r r e lie f. Speci fi cal l y , D arras s ert s that“[u] nder§ 1983, the Tow n i s r es pons i bl e foract i ons o f its re p re se n tativ e s th a t re su lt i n th e v io latio n o f a n in d iv id u a l’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts w hen the Tow n has negl i gent l yfai l ed t o t ake s t eps t o pr eventorcorr ectthe cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. ” A pl t . R epl yB r . at25 ( ci t i ng R oger s v. B oar d of Trus t ees , 859 P. 2d 284, 287- 8 8 (C o lo. A p p . 1 9 9 3 )). Y et R o g ers e x p li cit lyrejected this th eo ry : “T h e S u p rem e C o u rt h a s . . . ru led . . . tha t n e g lig e n c e c a n n o t f o rm th e b a sis o f

a m o n e yd a m a g e s lia b ili ty c laim u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 .” R o g e rs, 8 5 9 P .2 d a t 2 8 7 (c itatio n o m itt e d ). W e to o h a v e sta ted th is rule a n d rejected D arr’s po sit ion . In Jojola v . C h av ez , w e stated that “[ l] iabili tyu n d er § 1983 m us tbe pr edi cat ed upon a ‘ d e lib e ra te ’ depr i vat i on of cons t i tut i onal r i ght s bythe d e f e n d a n t, an d n o t o n n e g lig e n c e .” 5 5 F .3 d 4 8 8 , 4 9 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (e m p h a sis in o ri g inal). T he Supr eme C our thas des cr i bed the corr ects t andar d fors ubj ect i ng a m u n ici p ali tyto li ab il ityu n d er § 1 9 8 3 : “[A ] l o ca l go v ern m en t m ayn o t be s u ed u n d er § 1983 foran i nj uryi nfl i ct ed s ol el ybyi t s empl oy ees oragent s . I ns t ead i ti s w hen exec ut i on of a gove r nm ent ’ s pol i cyorcus t om . . . i nfl i ct s the i nj urythatthe governm ent a s a n e nt i tyi s r e s po ns i bl e un de r§ 1 98 3. ” M on e l l v. D e p’ tof Soc . Se r vi c e s , 43 6 U. S. 658, 694 ( 1978) . A pl ai nt i ff maypr ove the exi s t ence of an of fi ci al pol i cyorcus t om i n at lea st f iv e w a y s: (1 ) th e m u n icip a litym a yb e liab le f o r a d e c isio n b yits p ro p e rly- 22-

cons t i tut ed l egi s l at i ve body ; ( 2) an off i ci al pol i cyexi s t s w hen the muni ci pal boar d or agenc yexer ci s es author i tydel egat ed t o i tbya muni ci pal l egi s l at i ve body ; ( 3) act i ons by th o s e w i th f

i n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a u th o r i ty f o rth e m u n i c i p a l i ty c o n s t i tu t e o f f i c i a l p o l i c y; (4 ) th e m u n icip a litym a yb e liab le f o r a c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n re su lti n g f ro m in a d e q u a te tra in in g w h e n its f

a ilu re to tra in th e law les s e m p lo y e e re f lec ts a d e lib e ra te in d if

f e re n c e to the pl ai nt i ff’ s cons t i tut i onal l y - pr ot ect ed r i ght s ; or( 5) the muni ci pal i ty ’ s cus t om caus ed the cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. C i tyof C ant on v. H arr i s , 489 U . S. 378, 388- 89 ( 1989) ( i nadequa t e tr ai ni ng) ; Pem baurv. C i tyof C i nci nnat i , 475 U . S. 469, 480, 481- 82, 481 n. 10 ( 1986) ( m uni ci pal l egi s l at i ve ac t i on, i ndi vi dual w i th fi nal deci s i on- m aki ng author i ty , and cu stom ); M o n ell , 4 3 6 U . S . at 69 4 (ag en cyex erc isi n g d eleg ated au tho ri ty ). D arrhas noti dent i fi ed evi dence demonstr at i ng thatC A B ori t s chai r m an’ s conduct r efl ect s T el l ur i de’ s offi ci al pol i cyorcus t om . C A B i s nota l egi s l at i ve body . T el l ur i de n e v e r i m b u e d C A B w ith a u th o ri ty to s p e a k o n its b e h a lf o r t o d is c u s s p e rs o n n e l is s u e s . C A B di d nothave a nyi nputi nt o T el l ur i de’ s per s onnel deci s i ons , and s o C A B w as nott he fi nal deci s i on- m aki ng author i tyforthe Tow n. A nd ther e i s no evi dence thatT el l ur i de w as del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o D arr ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s orthatT el l ur i de cr eat ed a c u s to m th a t c a u s e d th e a lle g e d c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . Instea d , D arr asse rt s tha t his clai m rests up o n a n eg li g en ce theo ry . A p lt . R ep lyB r. at25. Forexampl e, D arrs t at es thatT el l ur i de’ s l i abi l i tyi s pr edi cat ed on i t s negl i gent s upervi s i on of C A B , w hi ch i s evi dence d byi t s fai l ur e t o dr afta mi s s i on s t at ementor chart ergoverni ng C A B . A pl t . R epl yB r . at26. I n s um , D arrar gues , “[a ] s a r es ul tof the- 23-

T ow n’ s negl i gentover s i ghtof i t s ow n agenc y , D arr ’ s l i bertyi nt er es tw as vi ol at ed w hen h e w a s d e f

a m e d b yth e B o a rd a t p u b lic m e e tin g s .” Id . W e di s agr ee w i th D arr ’ s m i s s t at ementof the l aw and w i th the err oneous concl us i on he r eac hes byappl y i ng i t . N egl i gence i s nota bas i s forl i abi l i tyunder§ 1983, so D arr’s arg u m en ts m u st fail . A cc o rdin g ly , w e f ind n o erro r i n the d istri ct co u rt ’s deci s i on t o di s m i s s D arr ’ s l i berty - i nt er es tcl ai m , butw e af fi r m on the al t ernat i ve gr ound thatD arr ’ s ar gum ent s t o us w er e l i m i t ed t o pr ovi ng the Tow n’ s negl i gence — an in s u f f ic ie n t b a s is f

o r l ia b ility u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 .

C . S u b st an ti ve D u e P rocess A pu bli c em ploy ee w i th a p ropertyi nter esti n co nti nu ed em ploym ent has a s u b s ta n tiv e -d u e -p ro c e s s ri g h t n o t to b e te rm in a te d f o r a rb itr a ry o r c a p ri c io u s re a s o n s . C ur t i s v. O kl a. C i tyPub. Schs . B d. of Educ. , 147 F. 3d 1200, 1215 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng T enth C i r cui tauthor i tyforthe pr opos i t i on that“[i ] n or dert o pr es enta cl ai m of d e n ia l o f ‘s u b s ta n tiv e ’ d u e p ro c e s s b ya d is c h a rg e f o r a rb itr a ry o r c a p ri c io u s re a s o n s , a l i bertyorpr opertyi nt er es tm us tbe pr es entt o w hi ch the pr ot ect i on of due pr oces s can att ach” ) . B utthe due pr oces s cl aus e does notpr ecl ude publ i c empl oy er s fr om m ai nt ai ni ng at - w i l l empl oym entr el at i ons hi ps thatthe empl oy erm ayt erm i nat e w i thout c a u se . S e e id . T h u s, th e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tlyh e ld th a t th e C o n stitu tio n d id n o t p ro h ib it T e llu ri d e f

ro m te rm in a tin g D a rr , a n a t- w ill e m p lo y e e , w ith o u t c a u s e . N everthel es s , a s ubs t ant i ve- due- pr oces s cl ai m , i f vi abl e, r equi r es as s es s i ng w h ethe r a g o v ern m en tal ac ti o n is arbitrary , irrati o n al, o r sho ck ing to the co n tem p o raryD e sp ite a p o ten tial d isp u te o v e r w h e th e r th e sh o c k -th e -c o n sc ien c e tes t ap p lies to 5 al l due pr oces s vi ol at i ons , s ee Tonkovi ch, 159 F. 3d at528- 29, w e nee d notdeci de the i ssue i n thi s case because T el l uri de’s cond uct does no tviol at e t he d ue p rocess cl ause u n d e r a n yo f

th e s ta n d a rd s .

- 24- c o n sc ien c e . B u tler v . R io R a n c h o P u b . S c h s. B d . o f E d u c ., 3 4 1 F .3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 0 -0 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); T o n k o v ich v . K an . B d . o f R eg en ts, 1 5 9 F . 3 d 5 0 4 , 5 2 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 5 T e llu rid e ’s d e c isio n to ter m in a te D a rr b e c a u se D a rr v io late d a T o w n -im p o se d e th ica l ru le th a t h e re sp e c t o th e rs o n th e jo b a n d b e c a u se D a rr c o u ld n o lo n g e r e f f e c tiv e lyp e rf

o rm h is du t i es as a m ars hal i s not arbitrary , capri ci ou s, or shock i ng t o the con sci ence, buti s a r a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e t o th e p r o b l e ms p o s e d b yDa rr ’ s p r e s e n c e a s a T e l l u r i d e ma r s h a l . No r eas onabl e j urycoul d concl ude the oppos i t e, and D arrdoes notdi s put e thatthes e r eas ons form ed the bas i s forhi s t erm i nat i on. Forexampl e, D arradmi t t ed i n hi s depos i t i on thathe w as unabl e t o eff

ect i vel yper form hi s j ob as a mar s hal beca us e of the publ i c’ s negat i ve per cept i on of hi m . W e ca n t hi nk of onl ya fe w bett err eas ons t o fi r e an e m pl oy ee than the fac tthatthe empl oy ee c an no l ongerper form hi s j ob dut i es beca us e hi s al l egedl yhar dn o s e d c o n d u c t g e n e ra te d a p o is o n o u s p u b lic re a c tio n . N one of D arr ’ s ar gum ent s r equi r es a di ffe r entr es ul t . I ndeed, the Perr i n v. E gger d ec isi o n , u p o n w h ich D arr reli es, he ld tha t “[b ]ec au se th e [ 1 9 9 0 ] m an u al did n o t r eq u ir e ca u se f o r t erm ination , there is no co n tr ac t r igh t t o co n ti n u ed em p loym en t . . . . ” A p lt . B r. atappx. B . I n t hatdeci s i on, as he di d her e, the di s tr i ctj udge found thatthe pl ai nt i ff ha d a r i ghtt o a hea r i ng underthe ol d pol i ci es , butnota pr opertyi nt er es ti n the empl oym ent its e lf.- 25-

S im ilarly , n o n e o f

th e o th e r d e c isio n s th a t D a rr c ites su p p o rts th e p ro p o sitio n th a t a publ i c empl oy erm aynott erm i nat e an a t - w i l l empl oy ee w i thoutcaus e. W i eman v. U pdegr aff

, 344 U . S. 183, 190, 192 ( 1952) , hel d thata St at e maynotatt empt t o bar d islo y a l in d iv id u a ls f

ro m its e m p lo yb yp a ss in g a sta tu te im p o sin g a lo y a ltyo a th excl udi ng per s ons s ol el yon t he bas i s of or gani zat i onal m ember s hi p, butneverdeci ded w hetheran at - w i l l empl oy ee ha s a s ubs t ant i ve- due- pr oces s r i ghtnott o be t erm i nat ed w i thoutcaus e; J ohns on v. B r anch, 364 F. 2d 177 ( 4th C i r . 1966) , cons i der ed w hethert he p u b lic e m p lo y e r v io late d a c o n tra c t-e m p lo y e e ’s r ig h ts w h e n th e e m p lo y e r d e c lin e d to r enew hercontr act , os t ens i bl ybeca us e s he w as engage d i n cons t i tut i onal l y - pr ot ect ed ci vi l - r i ght s pr ot es t s ; and M orr i s v. C l i ffor d, 903 F. 2d 574 ( 8th C i r . 1990) , addr es s ed, i n a q u a lifie d -im m u n ityc o n tex t, w h e th e r a u n iv e rsity ’s d e c isio n n o t to re n e w a c o n tra c tem p loy ee ’s co n tr ac t violated the e m p loy ee ’s du e p roc ess righ t t o b e f ree fro m arb itrary and capr i ci ous di s char ge— a r i ghtthatthe uni ver s i tyal l egedl ycr eat ed bec aus e the uni ver s i ty ’ s fac ul tyhandbook s t at ed thata t enur ed fa cul tym embercoul d be di s m i s s ed onl yforadequa t e ca us e. U nli ke the pl ai nti ffs i n the abo ve cases, D arrw as an at -w i l l em ploy ee w ho se e m p lo ym e n t w a s te rm in a ted a f ter h e v io late d a d e p a rtm e n tal ru le a n d a lleg e d ly antagon i zed the com m un i tyw i th h i s zeal ou s poli ci ng . T he sub st anti ve-due -pr ocess cl aus e does notforbi d a publ i c empl oy erfr om t erm i nat i ng i t s at - w i l l empl oy ees w i thout c a u s e . R e g a r d l e s s , th e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e th a tT e l l u r i d e t e r m i n a t e d D a rrb a s e d o n a rb i t r a r y, capr i ci ous , orcons ci ence - s hocki ng r eas ons . T hus , the di s tr i ctcourtdi d noterrby- 26-

g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in T e llu ri d e ’s f a v o r o n th is s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s c la im .. D . S ta te L a w C o n tr a c t C la im C ol or ado l aw cr eat es tw o contr acttheor i es underw hi ch a t erm i nat ed empl oy ee c an e n f o rc e te rm in a tio n p ro c e d u re s s e t f o rt h in a n e m p lo y e e m a n u a l. Fi r s t , an empl oy ee maybe ent i t l ed t o a contr act - bas ed r emedyi f he ors he ca n demonstr at e thatthe empl oy erm ade a n offe rt o the empl oy ee bypr om ul gat i ng the t erm i nat i on pr ocedur es and thatthe empl oy ee’ s i ni t i al orcont i nued empl oym ent cons t i tut ed ac cept ance of and c ons i der at i on forthos e pr ocedur es . C ont ’ l A i rL i nes , I nc. v. K eena n, 731 P. 2d 708, 711 ( C ol o. 1987) . T he empl oy er ’ s w i l l i ngnes s t o be bound ca n be i nferr ed i f the manual l acks a di s cl ai m ers t at i ng thati tdoes notcons t i tut e a c ontr actor i f t he d i scl ai m er i s not cl ear and co nspicuou s. E ven son v . C olo. F arm B ureau M ut. Ins. C o. , 879 P. 2d 402, 409 ( C ol o. A pp. 1993) . B utthe exi s t ence of a di s cl ai m eri s not di s pos i t i ve. T he empl oy er ’ s i nt entt o be bound ca n be i nferr ed i f the manual cont ai ns m andat ory - t erm i nat i on pr ocedur es orr equi r es j us tcaus e fort erm i nat i on. I d. I f the r ecor d evi dence cr eat es an i s s ue as t o w hetheran empl oym entcontr actexi s t ed, then s um m aryj udgm enti s i nappr opr i at e. I d. Second, an empl oy ee mayal s o be ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde ra pr om i s s ory - es t oppel th e o ryif h e o r sh e c a n d e m o n stra te th a t (1 ) th e e m p lo y e r sh o u ld h a v e re a so n a b ly expec t ed i t s empl oy ee t o cons i derthe empl oym entm anual as a comm i t m entfr om the empl oy ert o fol l ow the t erm i nat i on pr ocedur es out l i ned i n the manual ; ( 2) the empl oy ee r eas onabl yr el i ed on the pr ocedur es t o hi s orherdetr i m ent ; and ( 3) i nj us t i ce c an be- 27-

avoi ded onl ybyenfor ci ng the t erm i nat i on pr ocedur es . C ont ’ l A i rL i nes , I nc. , 731 P. 2d at 712. T h e C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls in E v e n so n a d d re ss e d a n im p lied -c o n tra c t cla im cat egor i zed unde rthe fi r s tcontr acttheoryi dent i fi ed i n C ont ’ l A i rL i nes , I nc. — the em ploy er m anifest ed an i ntentt o b e bo un d b ythe m anu al . T he E ven son co urtfi rs t id e n tifie d se v e ra l d isc laim e r p ro v isio n s in th e p lain tiff ’s e m p lo ym e n t m a n u a l: “Em pl oy ees have be en hi r ed atthe di s cr et i on of the companyand thei rempl oym entm ay be t erm i nat ed ati t s w i l l and atanyt i m e. ” Evenson, 879 P. 2d at409. A l though thi s w as onl yone of s ever al di s cl ai m er s appea r i ng i n the manual , E vens on hel d thata di r ect ed ver di ctw as i nappr opr i at e bec aus e the empl oy ee’ s m anage r s t es t i fi ed thattheyr egar ded and appl i ed the di s ci pl i narypr ocedur es as m andat ory . I d. T her e w as fur therevi dence that the c o m p an y ’s C E O d iscu ssed co m p li an ce w ith the term ination p roc ed u res b ef o re te rm in a tin g th e p la in tif

f ’s e m p lo ym e n t. I d . D arr ca n n o t suc ce ed o n eith er o f th e a b o v e c o n tr ac t th eo ri es. C o n tr aryto D arr’s i nacc ur at e as s ert i ons , both t he or i gi nal and r evi s ed pol i ci es cont ai n a di s cl ai m er , r ebutt i ng a n yf a c ia l c o n te n tio n th a t T e llu ri d e m a n if e s te d a n in te n t to b e b o u n d b yits p o lic ie s . C o m p are A p lt . B r. at 58 (st ati n g that the o ri g inal p o li cies d id n o t con tai n a d iscl aim er), w ith A p p x . , V o l. II, at 45 5 , 4 6 9 (th e o ld p o li cies’ clea r st atem en ts th at th eyw ere u n d e rg o in g re v isio n (a sta tem e n t ap p e a rin g o n th e c o v e r) a n d th a t th e yd id n o t co n stitu te an em p loym en t con tr ac t ( a statem en t app ea ri n g o n the f ir st pa g e)). W e n o te th at D arr’s br i ef r el i es on tw o cas es hol di ng thata s uffi ci entdi s cl ai m erw oul d i ncl ude a s t at ement- 28-

thatthe empl oym entm anual i s nota contr actand ca nnotbecome one, ora s t at ementon th e f irst p a g e th a t th e e m p lo ym e n t m a n u a l is a c o llec tio n o f p o licie s, n o t a c o n tra c t. A p lt. B r . at57. T he ol d pol i ci es ati s s ue her e i ncl uded s i m i l ars t at ement s on the cove rand on th e f ir s t p a g e . A p p x ., V o l. I I, a t 4 5 5 , 4 6 9 . I n l i ghtof D arr ’ s admi s s i on thatthe r evi s ed pol i ci es appl i ed t o hi m , the cons pi cuous s t at ementon t he ol d pol i ci es thattheyw er e “U nder goi ng R evi s i on, ” and the ol d pol i ci es ’ s t at ementthattheydi d notcr eat e an e m pl oym entcontr act , i ti s cl earthat T e llu rid e d id n o t m a n if e st a n in ten t to b e c o n tra c tu a llyb o u n d to th e o ld p o licie s m e re ly b yp ro m u lg a tin g th e p o lic ie s a n d o f f e ri n g D a rr e m p lo ym e n t. D arr ’ s pr om i s s ory - es t oppel theoryi s al s o unper s uas i ve. D arrar gues thatboth t he old poli ci es and the chief m ars hal’ s pastdecis i on s t o term i nate em ploy ees w i th cau se creat ed an i m pli ed co ntr actno tt o term i nate hi m w i tho ut cause. A ccordi ng t o D arr , these c la im s ra is e a g e n u in e d is p u te o f m a te ri a l f

a c t th a t th e ju ry m u s t r e s o lv e . B utD arr ’ s admi s s i on thatthe new pol i ci es appl i ed t o hi m vi t i at es hi s r el i ance cl ai m . H e cann ot s uccessfull ycl ai m that he r easona blyrel i ed o n the ol d p oli ci es becau se he s i m ul t aneous l yconce des thatonl ythe new pol i ci es w er e i n eff ect . D arr ’ s r el i ance w oul d be unr eas onabl e as a mat t erof l aw beca us e he a l l egedl yr el i ed on pol i ci es he knew w er e i noper at i ve. M or eover , both the ol d and new pol i ci es m ade c l earthattheydi d not cons t i tut e an e m pl oym entcontr act . D arreven s i gned a f or m acknow l edgi ng thathe r ece i ved the new m anual and ac know l edgi ng thathe coul d be t erm i nat ed w i th orw i thout c a u se o r a h e a rin g . T h is la n g u a g e m a k e s it u n re a so n a b le a s a m a tter o f law f o r D a rr to- 29-

r el yon ei therm anual as a contr act , and i ti s a l egal l yi ndefe ns i bl e pos i t i on thatT el l ur i de s houl d have r eas onabl yexpec t ed D arrt o i gnor e thi s cl earl anguage and r el yon the m anu al s. I n addi t i on t o D arr ’ s fat al admi s s i on r egar di ng the ol d pol i ci es ’ expi r at i on, the new p o licie s c lea rlyin f

o rm e d e m p lo y e e s th a t th e T o w n in ten d e d to m a in tain a n a t-w ill empl oym entpol i cyr egar dl es s of otherpr ovi s i ons i n the pol i ci es orthe w ayi n w hi ch the T ow n t erm i nat ed i t s empl oy ees . N ei therT el l ur i de norD arrcoul d r eas onabl ybel i eve that the new pol i ci es cons t i tut ed a bi ndi ng contr actorthatthe chi ef mar s hal ’ s al l eged b e h a v io r c o u ld a lte r t h is c le a r l a n g u a g e . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatD arrdi d notpr es ents uffi ci entevi dence i n hi s favor t o defe atT el l ur i de’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton thi s s t at e l aw contr acti s s ue. I I I . CO NC L US I ON T h e T o wn c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l yr e v i s e d th e o l d p o l i c i e s , Da rrc a n n o ts u b j e c tth e T o wn t o li abil i tyun der § 19 83 for act i ng neg l i gen t l y , D arrl acked a subst anti ve-due -pr ocess rig h t in c o n tin u e d e m p lo ym e n t, an d D a rr’s e m p lo ym e n t m a n u a ls d id n o t am o u n t to co n tr ac ts w ith T ell u ri d e. T h u s, the d istri ct co u rtd id n o t err byg ran ti n g T ell u ri d e’s s um m ary -

j udgm entm ot i on and di s m i s s i ng D arr ’ s fede r al and s t at e cl ai m s . T he di s tr i ct co u rt ’s de cisi o n is th ere fo re AF F I RM ED .