highly contextual, there are certain minimum requirements: [t]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. It is a purpose of the ancient institution of property to protect those claims upon which people rely in their daily lives, reliance that must not be arbitrarily undermined. Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701 (emphasis added). Although “prope h Cir.1988) (finding that a state statute and a school board policy providing for accumulation of sick days by public employees created a property interest in those sick days); Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207, 208, 91 S.Ct. 1772, 29 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff concedes that neither state law nor
holding a tenured state employee has a property right to continued employment and must be accorded due process before serious disciplinary sanctions holding that due process also protected nontenured public employees retained by the promise of continued employment holding that a state tort claim is a species of property protected by the due process clause holding that employees voluntary testimony is also inherently a matter of public concern holding that direct public employment is not a right protected by the privileges and immunities clause