Gaumond points to Section 3-01, entitled Probationary Period, which states, “Every newly employed person ... shall be required to successfully complete a probationary period of three (3) months.” Based on the fact that Gaumond successfully completed the probationary period, he contends that he has a constitutionally protected interest in continued employment. However, Section 3-01 creates no entitlement to continued employment. Board of Regents, v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (A person claiming a property inter est in a benefit “must have more than an abstract need or desire for it .... He must ... have a legitimate claim to it.”); see also Gray v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 150 F.3d 1347, 1350-52 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Further, the Manual says nothing about an
holding that plaintiff who was iranian is a member of a protected class holding the employee was clearly within the zone of her employment even though not at her work station because she was on the universitys premises the campus holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that assistant professors mere presence as a member of the faculty beyond a sevenyear probationary period did not demonstrate that she was protected by public universitys tenure system holding that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of age discrimination based upon a showing that she was a member of the protected group she was qualified and capable of doing her job she was discharged and that her manager called her old woman thus evincing agebased animus sufficient to demonstrate discriminatory intent