under the terms of the City Charter. Defendants argue that as an “appointed officer,” the clear language of the City Charter gives the City Council the power to terminate his employment at any time and for any reason. Titus argues that he is an employee entitled to the due process protections provided by the Personnel Policy. In the context of public employment, an employee must have a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to his job and must establish that he can only be terminated “for cause.” Weisbuch v. County of Los Angeles, 119 F.3d 778, 780 (9th Cir.1997). The Personnel Policy here gives “regular” City employees a legitimate claim of entitlement in their continued employment. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538-39, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Here, the City Charter gives the City Council
holding that an employee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office even though the papers seized from the office were not the property of the employee holding employees possessed property rights in continued employment where statute stated civil service personnel could not be dismissed except  for  misfeasance malfeasance or nonfeasance in office holding that under oklahoma law public employee convicted of accepting bribe while in office had no property right in pension benefits because pension was always contingent on maintaining honorable service while in office employees acceptance of bribe constituted breach of duty of honorable service and as result employee had no vested right in pension recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole holding disability benefits from us civil service are community property