interest in their continued employment and that Richardson’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim was barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs contend that DHS’s discipline policies entitled them to due process protection and that Arkansas has waived its sovereign immunity to ADEA suits. After reviewing the relevant discipline policies, we agree with the District Court that they did not alter plaintiffs’ at-will employment status to create property interests in their jobs. See Singleton v. Cecil, 176 F.3d 419, 424-25 & n. 6 (8th Cir.) (finding that an at-will employee has no property interest in job), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 966, 120 S.Ct. 402, 145 L.Ed.2d 313 (1999); Ball v. Ark. Dep’t of Cmty. Punishment, 340 Ark. 424, 10 S.W.3d 873, 876 (Ark.2000) (<HOLDING>); Batra v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Neb.,
holding that an atwill employee may not be discharged for refusal to violate the law holding that under new york law employment is atwill unless the duration of an employment contract is set forth explicitly holding that an atwill employee can be discharged for any reason or no reason unless employee is discharged for reasons that contravene a clear mandate of public policy holding that under arkansas law employment is atwill unless personnel manual or employment agreement contains express provision that employee shall not be discharged except for cause holding where employee handbook and employment offer letter disclaimed creation of employment contract that employees testimony of his understanding of terms of agreement did not raise fact issue of specific express and clear agreement contradicting the express provisions of the personnel manual and the employment offer letter