by reference to state law.’ ” Pittman v. Wil n violated under the federal Constitution, “[alleged violations ... are to be measured against a federal standard of what process is due and that standard is not defined by state-created procedures.” Id. at 1469. Under the federal standard of what process is due, the plaintiffs suspension with pay did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, even if it was a “suspension ... for punitive reasons,” Va.Code Ann. § 2.1-116.5 (Michie 1995). See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 544-45,105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (noting that an employer “can avoid the [due process] problem by suspending with pay” (footnote omitted)); Royster v. Board of Trustees of Anderson County Sch. Dist. Number Five, 774 F.2d 618, 621 (4th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Edwards v. California Univ. of Pa.,
holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable holding that under article i section 9 a person has no constitutionally protected privacy interest in abandoned property holding that a public employee who may only be terminated for cause has a property interest in his position that is protected by the 14th amendment 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 that a party cannot claim damages for breach of contract unless he has shown his full compliance with the contract and is not acting in bad faith