HERRON

v.

WOODRUFF ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Robinson v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 982 F.2d 892 (3d Cir. 1993)
  …proving failure to mitigate with the duty to mitigate. While the latter falls on the discharged employee, the former falls on the employer. One of the cases SEPTA relies on, Sellers v. Delgado College, 902 F. 2d 1189, 1193 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 987, 111 S.Ct. 525, 112 L.Ed.2d 536 (1990), spells out this distinction succinctly. It states: “Although the statutory duty to minimize damages is placed on the Title VII plaintiff, the employer has the burden of proving failure to mitigate.” Id.; see a…
• Hall v. Lombardi, 996 F.2d 954 (8th Cir. 1993)
  …ding when a regulation creates a liberty interest because we set out those requirements in Williams, 852 F. 2d at 379. The appellants also argue that this case is substantially similar to Sanders v. Woodruff, 908 F. 2d 310 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 987, 111 S.Ct. 525, 112 L.Ed.2d 536 (1990). In Sanders, an inmate claimed that the prison officials violated his due process rights when they moved him within the Special Management Facility from a less restrictive Level II assignment to Level I. Id. at…
• Millard L. Swenson v. Trickey, 995 F.2d 132 (8th Cir. 1993)
  …aim — whether Swenson’s interest in avoiding administrative segregation was protected by the Due Process Clause, and whether he received the process that was constitutionally due. See Sanders v. Woodruff, 908 F. 2d 310, 312 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 987, 111 S.Ct. 525, 112 L.Ed.2d 536 (1990). We conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because neither of these issues was clearly established in February 1986. A. Did Swenson Have a Liberty Interest? The Due Process Clause does no…