We conclude that Heideman does not have a liberty interest. Heideman argues that she had a Fourteenth Amendment property interest in continued employment, claiming that MAC could discharge her only for cause. By statute, MAC employees are removable at-will. This manual is not intended to be and does not constitute a contract of employment, unilateral or otherwise. An employee's employment relationship with the MAC is an at-work relationship.
Employees remain free to terminate their employment at any time for any or no reason.
Conversely, the MAC remains free to terminate employees for any reason not prohibited by law . We conclude that Heideman was an at-will employee and thus had no property interest in continued employment. Moreover, even were Heideman entitled to due process, she was afforded all the process that was due. The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. This flexible framework accommodates different procedures for different situations.