Arthur Matthews

3520-001
Compare and Contrast
According to U.S. law, its citizens may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law. The Due Process Clause includes two ideas: the substantive due process include rights
unfairly against personhood, such as getting incarcerated without a hearing and the right not to be
discriminated against; idea two, procedural due process, in the context of employment, guarantees the
right of a public employees to be notified of the reason for dismissal and, an opportunity to defend
oneself (1995).
The two cases I chose showcase procedural due process contrast. And, why does a leisure
professional need to learn about due process? Because, as changes take place in society and the law,
[leisure] managers need to learn how to respond to them and make the chore of firing employees as
painless and risk-free as possible. (1995).
In the first case, Davenport v. Casteen, the plaintiff alleged the defendant caused his separation
from employment without a chance to clear his name. But, the plaintiff was given multiple opportunities
to tell his side of the story during two separate investigations of which one was conducted for a year.
Then, on the final occasion, before the plaintiff was dismissed from employment, the plaintiff opted-out
on dispelling claims. Finally, the plaintiff was dismissed. He then filed a complaint with the court
claiming loss of property (employment) and liberty (a clear name). However, since the plaintiff was
employed by private corporations the court decided that res judicata (a matter judged) thus barred
action against. (1995).
With the idea set about the meaning of due process from the case Davenport v. Casteen, the
case between Rodgers v. Georgia Tech Athletic Association seem easily illuminated to reason as far as
due process being the subject. As read in the Davenport case, fair employment separation involves due
process, which means a chance to explain why one should not be dismissed from public employment.
Rodgers separation from his coaching employment was democratically done. However, Rodgers was
unfairly terminated by a public employer without due process. In this case, the unfair termination was
constitutionally actionable against since Rodgers had a right to his property; in this instance, property
refers to Rodgers coaching contract. Therefore, as a result of the breach, the public employer
voluntarily paid the remaining worth of the contract until the contract ended, but in court, Rodgers was
not granted the fringe benefits incidental to a college head coach job. (1983).
Although this case is primarily about fringe benefits being property, the case also deals with
the idea of due process. The defendant in this case admits the breach of contract done by decision while
at the same accepting financial culpability. Rodgers sued for more but got only the worth of the actual
contract; therefore, in closing, as a future leisure service provider, knowing what to expect in the way
of lawsuits and knowing how to avoid or deal with them is important for the manager (2002).








Works Cited
Rodgers v. Georgia Tech Athletic Association. (1983). Retrieved 03 28, 2013, from Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10271742987919372230&q=rodgers+v.+Georgia
+Tech&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45
Davenport v. Casteen. (1995). Retrieved 03 22, 2013, from Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8144249392149163915&q=+DAVENPORT+v.+CAS
TEEN+&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45
Hronek, B. B., & J, S. O. (2002). Legal Liability in Recreation and Sports Second Edition. Champaign:
Sagamore.