Survey — a standard that Superintendent Timothy never told Ms. Hays that she needed to achieve in order to retain her employment. Further, Ms. Hays contends that the District engaged in arbitrary and capricious conduct when it fired her based on a single comment that “if a teacher treated a student this way, or if a coach treated an athlete this way, we would terminate them.” Yet these facts, if true, are insufficient to meet the “conscience-shocking” standard. “This standard is exceedingly difficult to meet, a fact underscored by the cases in which courts have declined to find a violation of substantive due process rights under substantially more egregious allegations than presented by [Ms. Hays].” Seabourn v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 1-300, 775 F.Supp.2d 1306, 1314 (W.D. Okla. 2010) (<HOLDING>) (citing cases); see also Tonkovich, 159 F.3d
holding that a law school professors substantive due process rights were not violated despite his allegations that the university failed to warn him that his conduct was prohibited holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties holding board did not fail to disclose exculpatory information in violation of teachers due process rights recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim holding that a career teachers substantive due process rights were not violated when the school board decided not to renew her contract due to concerns about her performance