Cross
Cross v. Multnomah County Sheriff's Office
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*304 MEMORANDUM **
Appellant Rodger W. Cross contends that he was accorded inadequate procedural due process. We disagree. Procedural due process required that Cross be given notice and an opportunity to respond prior to his termination. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). Cross was afforded both. There is no requirement that an employee be afforded an opportunity to confront opposing witnesses and cross-examine them under oath. See id. at 545 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 (noting that “something less than a full evidentiary hearing is sufficient”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We also reject Cross’s contention that the sheriffs alleged bias rendered the pretermination proceedings constitutionally deficient. The sheriffs participation in enforcing the County’s workplace rules did not preclude his participation in the subsequent pretermination hearing. See Vanelli v. Reynolds Sch. Dist., 667 F.2d 773 , 779 n. 10 (9th Cir.1982) (holding that school board members’ prior participation in a termination decision did not render them impermissibly biased at a subsequent hearing to review the termination decision). Cross…