“Arnzen prayed for damages for violation of his civil rights, wrongful discharge, and failure to give notice and an opportunity to be heard.”
How later courts described this case
- “Arnzen prayed for damages for violation of his civil rights, wrongful discharge, and failure to give notice and an opportunity to be heard.”
- “it is clear that a suit against a state official acting in his or her official capacity, is nothing more than a suit against the state”
- “[I]n order for [plaintiffl to have a property interest in continued employment, he must have beén more than an employee at will.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAKES, Justice Pro Tern.,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s opinion, and write only to note that a more fully developed record might disclose that no Loudermill due process violation occurred in this case. As footnote 3, ante p. 248 points out, Arnzen was given written notification that his employment was suspended because of his fish and game violation, and he was given the opportunity to, and did give a written statement, the contents of which may have satisfied his due process right “to respond.” However, the record is not sufficiently developed to support the trial court’s summary judgment in this case.