preliminary injunction hearing. Id., 435 U.S. at 250-51, 98 S.Ct. at 1045-46. However, in the case of public employees who have been terminated without due process, the cases suggest that a constitutionally adequate hearing can be a proper remedy when a person’s right to procedural due process is violated. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 603, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2700, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972) (to the extent terminated college professor proved that he had a property interest in his position, professor would not be entitled to automatic reinstatement, “[b]ut such proof would obligate college officials to grant a hearing at his request, where he could be informed of the grounds for his nonretention and challenge their sufficiency.”); Brewer v. Parkman, 918 F.2d 1336, 1341-42 (8th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Irizarry v. Cleveland Public Library, 727
holding a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is not available where the employee has an existing statutory remedy holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law holding that district court may order hearing as remedy for termination of public employee without due process holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case holding that a notice recommending termination of an employee to the board without notice to the employee of employees right to attend and dispute the claims violated due process