Say v. Umatilla School District 6

MEMORANDUM

Brian Say appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Umatilla School District. Say argues that the process by which Umatilla terminated his contract as Superintendent did not comport with the requirements of the Due Process Clause. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir.2009). We are unpersuaded by Say’s arguments and affirm the judgment of the district court.

As a general matter, before being fired a public employee with a property interest in continued employment “is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story.” Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). Here, Say received written notice, an explanation of Umatilla’s evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story. He argues, however, that the hearing with which he was provided was not meaningful because the school board had already prejudged the case against him. We are willing to accept the premise of Say’s argument but not his…