context: Based on the fact that Gaumond successfully completed the probationary period, he contends that he has a constitutionally protected interest in continued employment. However, Section 3-01 creates no entitlement to continued employment.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.parenthetical: A person claiming a property inter est in a benefit "must have more than an abstract need or desire for it .... He must ... have a legitimate claim to it."
citation_a.sentence: Board of Regents, v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (A person claiming a property inter est in a benefit “must have more than an abstract need or desire for it .... He must ... have a legitimate claim to it.”); see also Gray v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 150 F.3d 1347, 1350-52 (11th Cir.1998) (holding that assistant professor’s mere presence as a member of the faculty beyond a seven-year probationary period did not demonstrate that she was protected by public university’s tenure system).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 150 F.3d 1347, 1350-52
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that assistant professor's mere presence as a member of the faculty beyond a seven-year probationary period did not demonstrate that she was protected by public university's tenure system
citation_b.sentence: Board of Regents, v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (A person claiming a property inter est in a benefit “must have more than an abstract need or desire for it .... He must ... have a legitimate claim to it.”); see also Gray v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 150 F.3d 1347, 1350-52 (11th Cir.1998) (holding that assistant professor’s mere presence as a member of the faculty beyond a seven-year probationary period did not demonstrate that she was protected by public university’s tenure system).