Opinion ID: 795988
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Due Process Based on Ward's Email

Text: 42 Finally, the plaintiffs contend that Ward's email itself created due process rights that the Parks Department subsequently violated. Ward's email said that park employees should be given a choice to comply [with the new dress code] or be sent home. After the initial warning, any interim employee that is observed to be not complying is to be terminated. Plaintiffs contend that they were deprived of the procedural right of a warning, created by the email, when they were terminated without warning. 43 It does not appear that this claim was presented to the district court, as it is not discussed in the plaintiffs' opposition brief to the defendants' summary judgment motion. Further, the plaintiffs do not state what protectable property interest would distinguish this claim from the plaintiffs' other due process claim. Finally, the record does not support the argument that they were not warned, as it seems clear that instead the plaintiffs (and their supervisor) made clear their intention not to comply with the policy. 2 For these reasons, we find that the plaintiffs have failed to allege a viable due process claim.