their actions violated [Pratt’s] clearly established rights, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.” Pr ), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1068, 111 S.Ct. 786, 112 L.Ed.2d 849 (1991) (stating “we have held that the constitutionally protected property interest in employment does hether the Board obstructed the reinstatement order by using a pretext to suspend Pratt, this contention too must fail. It is undisputed that Pratt was receiving pay during his 1997 suspension. Although we have not previously had occasion to decide, numerous other jurisdictions have held, and we agree, that suspension with pay does not deprive an employee of a property right that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See Annapolis v. Rowe, 717 A.2d at 988 (<HOLDING>); Wasson v. Sonoma County Junior Coll. Dist., 4
holding that any constitutionally protected property interest employee had as a result of his employment contract has been satisfied by payment of full compensation  including salary and benefits  due under the contract recognizing that before due process guarantees are implicated there must be a deprivation by the government of constitutionally protected interest holding that suspended employee had no constitutionally protected property interest in actually performing job due process rights are not implicated so long as employee continues to receive salary and benefits holding that any constitutionally protected property interest an employee has as a result of his employment contract is satisfied by payment of the full compensation due under the contract holding parental rights are constitutionally protected fundamental interest