employee,” Ms. Hays had “a reasonable expectation of continued employment based upon district policy” and could only be terminated “for cause.” Thus, Ms. Hays had a substantive due process right to continued employment. See Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 528. But Ms. Hays has failed to show that the District’s conduct violated her right to continued employment in a manner that “is truly conscience shocking.” See id. (quoting Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 574). Ms. Hays argues that the District terminated her employment “on the basis of comments made by co-workers whose names [Superintendent Timothy] could not recall, making vague charges which he never shared with Hays.” Further, Ms. Hays asserts that Superintendent Timothy’s decision was based on achieving an 8 out of 9 on Mr. Frost’s Post-Con 529 (<HOLDING>). Here, the District states that it terminated
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 holding that similar allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim 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 recognizing a plaintiffs  1988 claim predicated on an alleged violation of his substantive due process rights