Task: songer_respond2_4_3

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the second listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)", specifically "other". Your task is to determine which specific substate government agency best describes this litigant.

ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge:
Near the end of his graveyard work shift on May 14, 1987, Gregg Fitzgerald Bailey was arrested as the result of an undercover investigation at the Alachua County Detention Center (ACDC). Bailey had been a corrections officer (a prison guard) at ACDC since 1985. Based on his.arrest and subsequent events, which included Bailey’s suspension without pay from ACDC, Bailey and his wife (Lizzie Shirley Bailey) began this § 1983 action against two governmental entities (Alachua County and the City of Gainesville) and twelve individuals (Stephen Garrahan, James Strauss, Gary Brown, Tom L. Allison, John S. Tileston, Nate Caldwell, Colleen Hayes, Farnell Cole, Charles Jerkins, Spencer Mann, Eugene Whitworth and L.J. “Lu” Hindery) (collectively, “the defendants”). Most of the defendants exited this litigation either through summary judgments or dismissal motions prior to trial or through directed verdicts at the close of testimony, leaving only three defendants (Caldwell, Hayes and Alachua County) to go to the jury on Bailey’s then-remaining claims. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Bailey against Caldwell and Hayes, awarding Bailey damages of $2,182,406. The jury exonerated Alachua County from liability. Bailey now appeals many of the summary judgments and directed verdicts as well as the jury’s verdict for Alachua County; Caldwell and Hayes cross appeal the jury verdict against them. As discussed below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial against Caldwell, Hayes and Allison solely on Bailey’s procedural due process claims stemming from his suspension.
I. FACTS
A. Background
On April 22, 1987, several inmates attempted to escape from ACDC by sawing a window with hacksaw blades. Lieutenant Brown, with the assistance of another ACDC officer, investigated the attempted escape and discovered that an inmate-trustee (Tribuani) had obtained the blades from a tool box in a maintenance room to which he had been allowed access. Tribuani had concealed the blades in his pants until he was able to pass the blades to other inmates, one of which was Charles Jerkins. Subsequently, Jerkins twice informed Brown that persons who were not inmates had assisted in the escape attempt. After consultation with Allison, who was then Assistant Director of ACDC, Brown contacted the State Attorney’s Office to investigate the potential wrongdoing by ACDC employees.
As a result of Brown’s contact, Tileston, who was serving as a Special Prosecutions Investigator with the State Attorney’s Office, was assigned to investigate Jerkins’ allegations. Tileston spoke with Brown, who told him that Jerkins’ had said that a “professional person” had assisted in the April escape attempt. Tileston was familiar with Jerkins because Jerkins was well known as both a criminal and a “snitch” to local law enforcement authorities. Tileston testified that Jerkins was a “known credible police source” and that he had verified through city and county law enforcement officers that Jerkins had provided reliable information in the past. Tr. 38-575-12, 13; Tr. 27-561-129, 130.
On May 8,1987, Tileston interviewed Jerkins and Jerkins named Bailey as a participant in bringing hacksaw blades into the jail. Jerkins described letters he had written to his girlfriend in which he had urged her to contact Bailey to arrange to bring hacksaw blades into the jail. Jerkins said that he and Bailey had developed a prior personal relationship. Jerkins knew Bailey’s phone number and told Tileston that he had offered Bailey both $500 and $1000 for hacksaw blades.
Tileston decided that he needed to test whether Bailey would accept money from Jerkins, and devised an undercover plan for this purpose. Because his office did not have the necessary equipment for his plan, Tileston obtained $500 cash and a body bug from the combined Gainsville/Alachua County Narcotics and Organized Crime Unit (NOCU). Furthermore, NOCU’s Deputy Cole was assigned to provide Tileston technical assistance with the listening equipment. Tileston’s plan was to give Jerkins the $500 with instructions to offer it to Bailey. A body bug would be placed on Jerkins so that any conversations between Bailey and Jerkins could be heard and recorded. Cole’s responsibility was to monitor the listening equipment.
B. Bailey’s Arrest
Tileston elected to conduct his test during Bailey's May 14 work shift. Brown, who was serving as Tileston’s liaison with ACDC, arranged to wire Jerkins and to give him the $500 before Bailey came on duty. One of Brown’s Lieutenants (Strauss) actually placed the body bug on Jerkins and gave him the $500. Jerkins was instructed to tell Bailey he had the money and to try to get into a conversation with Bailey about hacksaw blades. Although Bailey had access to Jerkins throughout his shift because he was responsible for the jail area in which Jerkins was housed, a further opportunity for conversation between the two men was contrived when Tileston had one of Bailey’s superiors instruct Bailey to remove Jerkins from his cell (ostensibly for more fingerprinting and charges) and then put him back.
Reception from the body bug was poor; Cole reported hearing a few snippets of conversation through his listening device, but a tape recording made of this conversation was later found to be inaudible. Specifically, at 12:08 a.m. Cole reported hearing Jerkins mention the “$500.” Tileston, Brown and Cole, who were stationed in Allison’s office, continued their monitoring throughout the night. At 6:21 a.m., Cole reported that he heard mention of “hacksaw blades” transmitted through Jerkins’ body bug. At this time, Tileston wanted to know if the money had passed from Jerkins to Bailey. Brown ascertained through Sullivan that the money had passed to Bailey and relayed this information to Tileston. After a brief discussion, and wanting to capture the money before Bailey's shift ended at 7:00 a.m., Tileston and crew headed for the part of the jail where Bailey was stationed.
After locating Bailey, who was supervising the morning feeding of the prisoners, Tileston and Cole showed Bailey their badges and were introduced by Brown. Tileston then asked Bailey to accompany them to Allison’s office to answer questions. No conversation transpired between Bailey and these officers during the five to ten minute walk to Allison’s office. In Allison’s office, Tileston informed Bailey that he was under arrest and Cole read Bailey his Miranda rights. After being asked about the money, Bailey removed it from his right front pants pocket, put it on the desk, and made a statement that no fingerprints would be found on the money. The money was wrapped in white paper. Bailey also said that he had talked to two officers about what was happening, but gave no specific information about these contacts. Tr. 38-575-47, 36-568-34 to 36. Bailey then requested an attorney and questioning ceased.
What Bailey’s version of the arrest and the events leading up to it add to this account is insubstantial. Bailey’s story reveals that Jerkins handed him a sock full of money, which he took because he knew he was supposed to confiscate contraband in the jail. According to Bailey, he dumped the money onto a piece of white paper, hoping to preserve the fingerprints of whomever had given the money to Jerkins. At first, Bailey put this bundle into a desk, and then twice tried with no avail to reach a supervisor. When Bailey noticed several inmate-trustees approaching, however, he feared for the money’s security and removed it from the desk and placed it in his pocket. He then went about his duties of overseeing inmate feeding, thinking that he would notify a supervisor once that duty was finished. He was arrested while attending to this duty.
C. Bailey’s Suspension
On the morning of his arrest, Bailey was given a letter written by Allison suspending him without pay “as of 0700 hours May 14, 1987” and stating that dismissal proceedings would be taken against him if he had not “rectified the prerequisites of his job within 15 days.” Bailey was then notified a second time that he was suspended without pay. By letter dated May 26,1987, Allison advised Bailey that “effective today, you are hereby placed on suspension without pay until further notice.” The parties’ third communication was a November 19, 1987 letter from Bailey to Caldwell (Alachua County’s Director of Corrections) asking for reinstatement, or a hearing if reinstatement was denied, or information on how to request a hearing if he was proceeding improperly. A decision by the State Attorney’s Office to enter a nolle prosequi as to all criminal charges filed against Bailey had prompted this letter to Caldwell. Caldwell directed Bailey’s letter to Allison, who responded on December 7, 1987 by denying Bailey’s request and noting that his “leave without pay” would continue pending the completion of an investigation. ACDC had requested that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), the body charged with certifying Florida’s law enforcement officers, investigate the possibility of decertifying Bailey.
The FDLE informed Caldwell that there was no basis for further action against Bailey via letter on June 9, 1988. Garra-han then requested that FDLE reopen its investigation, the status of which was uncertain at the time of trial. Caldwell, however, instructed Edward A. Royal, who replaced Allison when he left ACDC on February 13, 1988, to order Bailey back to work. By letter dated June 15,1988, Royal informed Bailey that he would receive back pay and ordered him to report to work on June 20, 1988.
D. Bailey’s Reinstatement
Bailey reported to work on June 20, with his lawyer and a letter from his psychiatrist in tow. Dr. Waldman, who had been treating Bailey since March 1988, Tr. 24-572-177, advised Bailey against returning to work at ACDC at that time. Thus, Bailey requested his back pay and asked that he be placed on sick leave until his benefits were exhausted, then placed on annual leave. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 13-A (Bailey’s counsel’s letter); Deposition Exhibit 52 (Bailey’s hand-delivered letter to this effect). The following day, Dr. Wald-man initiated an involuntarily commitment to Shands Hospital on behalf of Bailey. Dr. Waldman diagnosed Bailey as suffering from a psychotic breakdown and considered him to be a threat to himself and others (particularly at ACDC). Bailey’s status at Shands was subsequently converted to voluntary and he remained there for about five weeks.
Although Royal’s June 15, 1988 letter promised Bailey “any and all back pay and entitlements,” no monies were tendered to Bailey until September 29, 1989, almost a year after Bailey filed this lawsuit. See Defendant’s Exhibit 4. The record is unclear as to whether this was an unconditional tender of back pay or an effort at settlement. See Defendant’s Exhibit 5. In any case, it is uncontroverted that the check (wherever and whatever it may be) has not been cashed. Tr. 32-480-29 to 32. The record also leaves unclear Bailey’s status with ACDC at the time of trial. No hearings have been held regarding Bailey’s employment status with ACDC.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Bailey's First Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) sought compensatory, punitive and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The Complaint alleged under § 1983 that the defendants deprived Bailey of liberty and property without due process of law, and conspired to do so, by arresting him without probable cause, publicizing the arrest, and subsequently suspending him. The Complaint also alleged pendent state-law causes of action based on false arrest, malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, and violation of state civil rights. For analytical ease we have classified Bailey’s claims into five categories: (1) Bailey’s § 1983 claim that various defendants violated his due process rights by depriving him of a protected property interest in his employment by suspending him without pay and without granting him a hearing (the “procedural due process claim”); (2) Bailey’s § 1983 claim that various defendants violated his due process rights by depriving him of a protected liberty interest by maintaining stigmatizing information in his personnel file and not granting him a name-clearing hearing (the “name-clearing hearing claim”); (3) Bailey’s § 1983 claim that various defendants conspired to deprive him of his civil rights (the “conspiracy claim”); (4) all of Bailey’s claims concerning his allegedly unlawful arrest and the publication to the news media of the arrest (the “arrest-related claims”); and (5) all of Bailey’s remaining state claims and all of Lizzie Shirley Bailey’s loss of consortium claims, none of which has been raised on appeal. Accordingly, we deem waived any challenge to the district court’s orders on this final category of claims.
All defendants filed motions to dismiss and/or motions for summary judgment in response to Bailey’s Complaint. In July 1990, the district court entered an omnibus order granting in part motions to dismiss or for summary judgment filed by various defendants. In that order, the district court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity as follows: to Brown, Allison, Caldwell, Cole and Hayes on Bailey’s conspiracy and arrest-related claims; to Brown and Cole on Bailey’s procedural due process claim; and to Allison, Caldwell and Hayes on part of Bailey’s procedural due process claim (his “initial” suspension). The district court denied Allison, Caldwell, Hayes and Alachua County qualified immunity as to Bailey’s procedural due process claim regarding his “continued” suspension; denied Tileston, City of Gainsville, Alachua County, Garrahan, Strauss and Hindery qualified immunity as to Bailey’s conspiracy and arrest-related claims; and denied Caldwell, Hayes, Ala-chua County, City of Gainsville, Hindery, Tileston, Strauss, Garrahan, and Brown qualified immunity with respect to Bailey’s name-clearing hearing claim. The district court also dismissed all of Lizzie Shirley Bailey’s loss of consortium claims, none of which is at issue in this appeal.
A five-week jury trial on Bailey’s remaining claims began on July 9, 1990. On that date, the district court orally granted Allison summary judgment on all remaining claims, dismissing him from this litigation. At the close of Bailey’s case, all defendants moved for directed verdicts on various grounds; the district court deferred ruling on the motions until the close of all evidence. At that time, the remaining defendants renewed their directed verdict motions and Bailey moved for directed verdict as well. The district court denied Bailey’s motion, 'but granted directed verdicts for Tileston, Alachua County, City of Gains-ville, Strauss, Garrahan and Hindery as to Bailey’s conspiracy and arrest-related claims. The basis of the district court’s ruling was that Tileston had probable cause to arrest Bailey. The district court also directed verdicts in favor of all defendants on all of Bailey’s state claims, none of which is at issue in this appeal. Furthermore, the district court directed verdicts in favor of Tileston, City of Gainsville, Strauss, Brown, Garrahan and Hindery on Bailey’s name-clearing hearing claim. These directed verdicts left three defendants (Caldwell, Hayes and Alachua County) and two claims (procedural due process and name-clearing hearing) for the jury. After the jury returned its verdict for Ala-chua County, and for Bailey against Caldwell and Hayes on both claims, Bailey, Caldwell and Hayes filed motions for directed verdicts, judgments notwithstanding the verdict, or a new trial. The district court denied all motions and this appeal followed.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Bailey’s Appeal
1. Arrest-Related Claims
Bailey asserts that the district court erred in granting directed verdicts in favor of City of Gainsville, Alachua County, Hindery, Garrahan, Strauss and Tile-ston on his arrest-related claims. In granting these six defendants directed verdicts, the district court first found that Tileston had probable cause to arrest Bailey. Bailey argues, however, that Tileston did not have probable cause to arrest him of any crime and that the defendants conspired to, and did, falsely arrest and prosecute him. Furthermore, Bailey asserts that the defendants “individually and collectively possessed information that would lead a reasonable and honest person to know that he was innocent.” Brief of Appellant 24. If Tileston had probable cause for the arrest, then these defendants did not violate Bailey’s Fourth Amendment rights against false arrest as protected through § 1983. See Marx v. Gumbinner, 905 F.2d 1503, 1505-06 (11th Cir.1990) (existence of probable cause is an absolute bar to a § 1983 action premised on false arrest). Specifically, Bailey argues that the district court erred by taking the question of probable cause from the jury. We disagree. When considering whether a directed verdict should be upheld, our standard is the same as that applied by the district court. Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 581 (11th Cir.1989). Thus, we consider all the evidence and resolve all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. If the facts and inferences point overwhelmingly in favor of one party, such that reasonable people, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could not arrive at a contrary verdict, then the motion was properly granted. Id. A mere scintilla of evidence does not create a jury question; there must be a substantial conflict in evidence to create a jury question. Id.
We (and the district court) must evaluate these facts and inferences according to the legal standard for probable cause. Simply stated, that standard requires that an arrest be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 229, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2327, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). A familiar formulation holds that a “law enforcement officer has probable cause to arrest a suspect if the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, of which he or she has reasonably trustworthy information, would cause a prudent person to believe, under the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.” Von Stein v. Brescher, 904 F.2d 572, 578 (11th Cir.1990). Probable cause requires more than mere suspicion, but does not require convincing proof. Indeed, “[t]he Constitution does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested. If it did, § 1983 would provide a cause of action for every defendant acquitted.” Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 2695, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979).
The district court properly found that Tileston had probable cause to arrest Bailey by examining what the evidence revealed that Tileston knew at the time of the arrest. Tileston knew that an escape attempt had occurred at ACDC in April and that one of the inmates involved in that escape attempt had implicated Bailey. Tile-ston had investigated this tip by interviewing Jerkins personally and by checking Jerkins’ reliability with city and county law enforcement officers even though Tileston was already familiar with Jerkins. Bailey did not controvert this at trial. Tileston also knew that Cole had heard a comment regarding the $500 transmitted through Jerkins' body bug around midnight. At trial, Bailey admitted that around midnight Jerkins had said “I want out. I want to get out. I’ve got $500 for you now and $1,000 for you Sunday night,” and that Bailey had responded by telling him to “stay cool.” Tr. 24-572-140. Bailey also admitted that he never notified anyone of Jerkins’ midnight bribe attempt during his shift. Tr. 25-573-61 to 65. Although Bailey testified that he had twice attempted to notify his sergeant after taking the money from Jerkins, he admitted that he did not succeed in communicating with anyone. The district court accepted Bailey’s testimony regarding his notification attempts as true, but correctly noted that it was also true that Bailey did not communicate this fact to anyone “at, near, or after his arrest.” Tr. 39-576-109. Furthermore, Tile-ston knew that the money had passed to Bailey through Brown’s verification. Id. at 112-13. And finally, Tileston knew that Bailey said nothing about having the money in his pocket when confronted in his work area, when walking to Allison’s office, and when informed he was under arrest in Allison’s office. Only when asked did Bailey turn over the $500.
Moreover, in directing a verdict for these defendants based on probable cause, the district court properly accepted as true Bailey’s version of the events. See Tr. 39-576-107 to 114. The flaw in Bailey’s efforts to undermine Tileston’s probable cause is that Bailey’s version of the facts failed to create a substantial conflict in what Tileston knew at the time of the arrest. For instance, Bailey makes much of his prior communications with Strauss, Garrahan and Phillips regarding inmate contacts. Bailey testified that he had previously talked with Strauss regarding inmate contacts and that he had written Gar-rahan a letter in February 1987 regarding inmate contacts, which Garrahan referred to Strauss. Bailey also testified that he told Strauss that he had been approached again by an inmate as Strauss was leaving ACDC and Bailey was arriving the evening prior to Bailey’s arrest. Furthermore, Bailey testified that he told Phillips, the corrections officer on duty with Bailey the night of his arrest, generally about prior inmate contacts and his communications with Strauss and Garrahan. Although the lack of communication among ACDC personnel is unfortunate, none of Bailey’s prior discussions was reported to Tileston. The record is clear that Tileston did not know of these prior communications until months after the arrest. It was also uncontroverted that Strauss told no one of Bailey’s comment during shift change the evening prior to Bailey’s arrest. Bailey also points to the fact that Brown had not given Tileston his written investigative report concerning the April escape attempt, and argues that had he done so Tileston would have known that he was innocent. Bailey, however, overstates the significance of this omission. Brown’s written report, apparently unlike his oral report to Tileston, would have told Tileston that Tribuani had confessed to his role in the April escape attempt. The report would not have definitively established the source of the hacksaw blades used in that escape attempt, nor would it have ruled out the possibility that another escape attempt (involving Bailey) was being formulated. Thus, none of these factors that Bailey points to undermine what Tileston did know at the time of the arrest; none of these factors undermine the district court’s determination that Tileston had probable cause to make that arrest. Accordingly, we agree that Tileston had probable cause to arrest Bailey and we affirm the district court’s final judgments for all defendants with respect to all of Bailey’s arrest-related claims.
2. Conspiracy Claims
As noted above, Bailey’s theory of this case was not only that the defendants had falsely arrested him, but also that they had conspired to deprive him of his civil rights by arresting, jailing and suspending him without due process of law. The district court, however, found that there was a “total lack of evidence” to support Bailey’s theory that Alachua County, Hindery, City of Gainsville, Strauss, Tileston and Garrahan conspired to deprive him of his property and liberty by falsely arresting him, jailing him, and suspending him from his job. Tr. 39-576-114. Our de novo review of the record supports the district court’s conclusion. No reasonable juror could have found a conspiracy because Bailey presented no evidence of one. To prove a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy, a plaintiff “must show that the parties ‘reached an understanding’ to deny the plaintiff his or her rights [and] prove an actionable wrong to support the conspiracy.” Bendiburg v. Dempsey, 909 F.2d 463, 468 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2053, 114 L.Ed.2d 459 (1991). This, Bailey did not do. Indeed, the record in this case reveals just the opposite of conspiracy. Whereas the linchpin for conspiracy is agreement, which presupposes communication, the defendants in this case suffered from an extreme lack of communication. Thus, we agree with the district court that Bailey failed to establish his conspiracy theory of liability and affirm the district court’s final judgments for all defendants on this claim.
3. Procedural Due Process Claims
a. Against Caldwell, Hayes and Allison
As a public employee, Bailey possessed a property right in his continued employment with ACDC. See, e.g., Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576-78, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2708-10, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Indeed, this question does not seem to have been disputed below. What is disputed is whether Bailey was deprived of that property right without due process of law — that is, what process was Bailey due and what did he receive? In answering that question, we note that neither the personnel policies of Alachua County nor the state law of Florida provides the answer. Rather, federal constitutional standards determine what process Bailey was due. Cleveland Board of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1492, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985); Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 432, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 1155, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982). Bailey challenges several issues related to his suspension without pay from ACDC. First, the district court initially granted Allison, Caldwell, Hayes and Alachua County summary judgment as to Bailey’s “initial suspension” without pay in its July order. Confusion has reigned since. Bailey argues that by “initial suspension,” the district court meant Allison’s May 14th letter. Thus, according to Bailey, the court left open a window of potential liability beginning on May 26th when Allison wrote Bailey a second letter suspending him without pay. Bailey, however, argues that the district court erred in not leaving this window open as of May 14. Caldwell, Hayes and Alachua County argue that the district court’s “initial suspension” freed them from liability up to the point at which Bailey’s criminal charges were dropped and he requested reinstatement and a hearing (November 19, 1987). Although the parties participated in a lengthy argument on this point in chambers, the district court did not resolve the dispute at that time or thereafter. See Tr. 20-569-3 to 11. Caldwell and Hayes also assert that perhaps their window of liability opened as late as February 13, 1988. On that date Allison left ACDC: since the district court had granted summary judgment to Allison on the procedural due process claims because “he was already gone,” Caldwell and Hayes reason that they, too, must be free from liability for this period because it was Allison who actually wrote all three letters to Bailey.
Fortunately, we need not affix dates to Bailey’s procedural due process claims to resolve this confused issue. Rather, as developed below, we separate Bailey’s procedural due process claim into two strands: (1) his claim that he was deprived of due process when he was suspended without pay at the time of his arrest on May 14, 1987 without notice or an opportunity for a hearing (the “predeprivation procedural due process claim”), and (2) his claim that he was deprived of due process when ACDC continued his suspension without pay after May 14, 1987 without notice and an opportunity for a hearing (the “postdeprivation procedural due process claim”). The district court stated in its July order that “they [Allison, Caldwell and Hayes] reasonably believed that Bailey’s suspension without pay without a predeprivation hearing was lawful, considering the seriousness of the charges against him.” R. 388. The district court then granted qualified immunity to Allison, Caldwell, and Hayes for Bailey’s initial suspension. We think that the proper interpretation of the district court’s ruling is that Bailey had not carried his burden of demonstrating that the law was clearly established that he had a constitutional right to a predeprivation hearing before being suspended. To defeat a qualified immunity defense, Bailey was required to show that the defendants violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2816, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); see also Rich v. Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558, 1563-64 (11th Cir.1988) (explaining shifting burdens of proof once defendant raises affirmative defense of qualified immunity). In deciding whether a constitutional right is clearly established, we must judge the contours of the law at the time the employment decision was being made, irrespective of subsequent developments in the law. Thus, public officials are charged with keeping abreast of the current state of the law, not with anticipating changes. Whether the law is “clearly established” is a question of law that we review de novo. Courson v. McMillian, 939 F.2d 1479, 1487 (11th Cir.1991). We agree with the district court that Bailey did not carry his burden of establishing that he had a clearly established constitutional right to a predeprivation hearing.
In Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 539-40, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1914-15, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986), the Supreme Court stated that the requirement of a hearing does not always require the state to provide a hearing prior to the initial deprivation. “[T]he necessity of quick action by the State or the impracticality of providing any meaningful predeprivation process, when coupled with the availability of some meaningful means by which to assess the propriety of the State’s action at some time after the initial taking, can satisfy the requirements of procedural due process.” Id. 451 U.S. at 539, 101 S.Ct. at 1915. After noting that the “fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard and it is an ‘opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,’ ” the Court confirmed that it had “rejected the proposition that ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’ always requires the State to provide a hearing prior to the initial deprivation of property.” Id. at 540, 101 S.Ct. at 1915 (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965)); see also Cleveland Board of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (delay of nine months in providing postdeprivation hearing not constitutionally infirm).
In applying this flexible legal standard regarding predeprivation due process to the facts of this case, we conclude that Bailey did not establish that Caldwell, Hayes and Allison reasonably would have known their action in initially suspending him without pay upon his arrest was unlawful. A corrections facility’s paramount concern is security; a guard suspected of corruption compromises that security. Therefore, the defendants could have reasonably believed that this was a situation with a “necessity for quick action” that made a predeprivation hearing impracticable. Furthermore, the defendants were all aware that Alachua County’s personnel regulations provided an appeal procedure for employees to contest disciplinary action taken against them. It would have been reasonable for the defendants to believe that these procedures were capable of providing Bailey an adequate postdeprivation remedy. Thus, we agree with the district court’s ruling that Caldwell, Hayes and Allison are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Bailey’s procedural due process claims regarding his right to a predeprivation hearing.
The district court correctly allowed Bailey’s postdeprivation procedural due process claim to remain viable, however, and it ultimately went to the jury against Caldwell, Hayes and Alachua County. It should also have gone to the jury against Allison. Section 1983 requires proof of an affirmative causal connection between the official act or omission complained of and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Williams v. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370, 1380-81 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 932, 104 S.Ct. 335, 78 L.Ed.2d 305 (1983). Allison did not leave his employment with ACDC until February 13. 1988; all three letters from Allison to Bailey regarding his suspension were sent before that time (May 14, May 26 and December 7, 1987). At trial, Allison testified that he consulted with Caldwell and Hayes and received their approval for the action he took against Bailey on May 14. Tr. 28-562-1172 to 174. Although Hayes, who was Alachua County’s Personnel Director, denied the degree of consultation that Allison attributed to her, see Tr. 29-563-91, 92, as did Caldwell, see Tr. 29-563-116, 117, Bailey established sufficient evidence to warrant jury consideration of Caldwell and Hayes’ personal involvement. For instance, Hayes testified that “[i]t would be my responsibility to ensure that these [lengthy suspensions without pay] situations don’t happen.” Tr. 29-563-69. And Caldwell testified that he was the person “in charge of the administrative action taken against the Department of Corrections personnel.” Tr. 29-563-122, 123. We conclude that Bailey presented sufficient evidence so that a reasonable jury could find the requisite causal connection between the acts or omissions of each of the three defendants and his alleged deprivation with respect to his employment with ACDC. The jury is the appropriate body to resolve any factual conflicts in the evidence and to make credibility determinations where applicable. There is nothing in the record to support a principled legal distinction between Allison, Caldwell and Hayes in regard to Bailey’s postdeprivation procedural due process claims. Allison should have gone to the jury along with Caldwell and Hayes on Bailey’s postdeprivation procedural due process claims; he was not entitled to summary judgment because he was “already gone” as the district court held.
b. Alachua County
Bailey also argues that Alachua County should be held liable on his procedural due process and name-clearing hearing claims and that the district court erred by refusing to grant either his motion for directed verdict or his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to Alachua County. Our standard of review on this issue is the same as discussed above in reference to a directed verdict motion. See supra part 111(A)(1). We find firm support for the jury’s verdict for Alachua County in the record. A local government cannot be held liable for its employees’ acts under § 1983 on a theory of respondeat superior; the liability must be founded on an official policy or custom. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2036, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). An isolated decision by a municipal employee constitutes official policy only if that employee has “final policymaking authority” for the challenged act under state law. City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 123, 108 S.Ct. 915, 924, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988). In this case, the record is devoid of evidence that either Caldwell, Hayes or Allison had “final policymaking authority” for Alachua County’s personnel policy. Testimony at trial was unequivocal that final policymak-ing authority rested in the Board of County Commissioners. Furthermore, the record is also devoid of evidence that Alachua County had any official policy or custom to deny Bailey any name-clearing hearing to which he may have

Question: This question concerns the second listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)", specifically "other". Which specific substate government agency best describes this litigant?
A. City of, county of, etc. - in corporate capacity - criminal case
B. city of, county of, etc. - in corporate capacity - civil case
C. Other sub-state activity
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: B