Did the state courts, including the California Supreme Court, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to rule on substantive state labor law that voids a new condition of employment imposed on petitioner, thereby depriving her of a vested substantial property right in her government office as a police officer?

California Labor Code Sections 2802 and 2804 govern the indemnification of employees for necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties. Section 2802 requires the employer to indemnify the employee for all such necessary expenditures, while Section 2804 deems null and void any contract or agreement, express or implied, made by the employee to waive any right or remedy to which that employee is entitled under California state law. This Court has repeatedly found that public employees enjoy vested property interests in their continued employment. The question presented, which raises a significant question regarding the scope of the federal due process and the protections afforded to public employees with vested property interests in their employment, is as follows: Did the state courts, including the California Supreme Court, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to rule on substantive state labor law that voids a new condition of employment imposed on petitioner, thereby depriving her of a vested substantial property right in her government office as a police officer? ii RELATED CASES • Bedard v. City of Los Angeles et al. , No. 22STCP03008, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District. Judgment entered May 11, 2023. • Bedard v. City of Los Angeles et al. , No. B331062, Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three. Judgment entered Nov. 21, 2024. • Bedard v. City of Los Angeles et al. , No. S288254, Supreme Court of California. Judgment entered Jan. 15, 2025.