Opinion ID: 511871
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merits of Due Process Claims

Text: 20 The Fourteenth Amendment provides no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. U.S. Const. Amendment XIV, Sec. 2. In appellants' case, the process employed by the Consortium was faulty and inadequate; therefore, appellants' constitutional claim rises or falls on the existence of a property right in CETA employment. This Court has previously held that [n]either CETA nor its regulations required a showing of good cause before a CETA participant-employee could be terminated. Fonville v. Donovan, 740 F.2d 917, 919 (11th Cir.1984). As employees subject to discharge at will, CETA participants had no property interest in their jobs. See Blanton v. Griel, 758 F.2d 1540, 1543 (11th Cir.1985) (a state employee who may be discharged at will under state law does not have a property interest in his continued employment and is not entitled to the protection of due process); accord Zeigler v. Jackson, 716 F.2d 847, 849 (11th Cir.1983). Both the CETA statute, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 816(a)(2), and DOL regulations, 29 C.F.R. Sec. 98.26, provided CETA employees with grievance procedures, but did not restrict the grounds on which they could be discharged. As such, they established no expectation of entitlement. See Zeigler, 716 F.2d at 849, (The grievance procedure does not establish any grounds upon which a dismissal must be based ... and thus does not create a property interest in plaintiff's employment.). 21 Other courts have overwhelming held that CETA participants are at-will employees with no property right in continued employment. See e.g. Hayward v. Henderson, 623 F.2d 596, 597 (9th Cir.1980); Gooley v. Conway, 590 F.2d 744, 746 (8th Cir.1979); Maloney v. Sheehan, 453 F.Supp. 1131, 1141 (D.Conn.1978). 22 In spite of the precedent holding that CETA employees were subject to discharge at will and therefore without a valid property interest, appellants argue that the Consortium's actual practices established a protected expectation of for cause discharge. 4 Appellants rely on Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 599-602, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2698-2700, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972) (Texas teachers handbook and other representations made to teacher created expectation of tenure after 10 years of employment), for the proposition that a property interest may be created in a job when the employer by his representations has created a legitimate expectation of continued employment. In support of their argument, appellants offered evidence that the practice of the Consortium was to approve only discharges for cause. 5 However, the unsurprising showing that the Consortium may have disapproved of arbitrary discharges does not establish the existence of a for cause regime which generated protectable property rights. See Blanton, 758 F.2d at 1543 (11th Cir.1985) (mere fact that statute provides specific reasons for which a probationary employee may be discharged does not establish property right); Zeigler, 716 F.2d at 849. See also Perry, 408 U.S. at 601, 92 S.Ct. at 2699 (plaintiff must prove mutually explicit understandings). 23 Under Perry, the key factor in finding a property interest is the type of representations made to the employees. Id. at 599-602, 92 S.Ct. at 2698-2700. The district court found as a matter of fact that plaintiffs failed to prove that any [for cause discharge] practice, if it existed, was communicated to participants at the time of enrollment in the program. (Opinion at 31). Appellants presented evidence on the Consortium's treatment of its sub-grantees regarding discharges, but failed to show that the Consortium or its sub-grantees made any representations to CETA participants which would give rise to an entitlement of continued employment. In fact, appellants have argued that they were not apprised of the very grievance procedure upon which they partially base their expectation of for cause discharge. Viewed in their entirety, the rules, regulations, and representations made to CETA participants explaining their rights and responsibilities do not establish a mutually explicit understanding that appellants could only be terminated for cause. Appellants failed to prove a property interest in their employment and, therefore, their constitutional Sec. 1983 claims were properly denied. 24 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.