of the employer’s evidence, and an opportunity to present his or her side of the story to the employer.’ ” Farhat v. Jopke, 370 F.3d 580, 595 (6th Cir.2004) (quoting Buckner v. City of Highland Park, 901 F.2d 491, 494 (6th Cir.1990)). 5 . Other circuits have required something akin to a full evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Levine v. City of Alameda, 525 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir.2008) ("Because [the plaintiff’s] due process rights were violated, it was not improper for the district court to order a full evidentia ry hearing.... [The plaintiff] was entitled to a full post-termination hearing because there was no way to give [him] the process that he had been due, which was an opportunity to respond before the termination occurred.”); Locurto v. Safir, 264 F.3d 154, 174 (2d Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>); Calhoun v. Gaines, 982 F.2d 1470, 1476-77
holding that a limited pretermination hearing was sufficient where it was followed by a more comprehensive posttermination hearing holding that a pretermination hearing need not be in front of a neutral decisionmaker so long as the state affords plaintiff subsequent to his termination a full adversarial hearing before a neutral adjudicator holding that a nursing home participating in the medicaid program is not entitled to a pretermination hearing holding that due process does not require the state to provide an impartial decisionmaker at the pretermination hearing where posttermination remedies are available holding law requires court to consider full record of any evidentiary hearing even if hearing held by different judge