notification informing them of the charges, and were given the opportunity to confront the charges before a “fair and impartial adjudicator.” (Docket No. 98 at 14.) Furthermore, both Plaintiffs had attorneys present at the hearings. Id. While Plaintiffs do not deny that they were provided with notice and a hearing, they argue their due process rights were violated because the process provided was a “sham,” and Defendants had already made up their mind to fire them because of their political affiliation. (Docket No. 110 at 40.). Plaintiffs that allege the hearing was a sham must prove the hearing officer reached his decision before listening to the testimony and did not take into account the evidence presented. See Acosta-Sepúlveda v. Hernández-Purcell, 889 F.2d 9, 12 (1st Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); see also López-Anaya v. Palacios-de-Miranda,
holding it is not arbitrary and capricious to request additional evidence of continuing disability holding recommendation of hearing examiner valid when not arbitrary and capricious in nature and when no evidence demonstrates the result was preordained holding that the citys decision was arbitrary and capricious when it was contrary to the evidence and based solely on speculation arising from prior unrelated acts holding that even when there is a conflict of evidence before the commission and the evidence was such that the commission could have reasonably reached a contrary decision the commissions decision was not arbitrary and capricious holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious