context: Yet these facts, if true, are insufficient to meet the "conscience-shocking" standard. "This standard is exceedingly difficult to meet, a fact underscored by the cases in which courts have declined to find a violation of substantive due process rights under substantially more egregious allegations than presented by [Ms. Hays]."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 159 F.3d 529, 529
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that a law school professor's substantive due process rights were not violated despite his allegations that the university failed to warn him that his conduct was prohibited
citation_a.sentence: Seabourn v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 1-300, 775 F.Supp.2d 1306, 1314 (W.D. Okla. 2010) (holding that a “career teacher’s” substantive due process rights were not violated when the school board decided not to renew her contract due to concerns about her performance) (citing cases); see also Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 529 (holding that a law school professor’s substantive due process rights were not violated despite his allegations that the university failed to warn him that his conduct was prohibited).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 775 F.Supp.2d 1306, 1314
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that a "career teacher's" substantive due process rights were not violated when the school board decided not to renew her contract due to concerns about her performance
citation_b.sentence: Seabourn v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 1-300, 775 F.Supp.2d 1306, 1314 (W.D. Okla. 2010) (holding that a “career teacher’s” substantive due process rights were not violated when the school board decided not to renew her contract due to concerns about her performance) (citing cases); see also Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 529 (holding that a law school professor’s substantive due process rights were not violated despite his allegations that the university failed to warn him that his conduct was prohibited).