Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USA 4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USA 4 Termination of employment ― "whistleblowing" HEADNOTES Facts A newly hired police officer who was in probationary status discovered that a man sentenced to 10 days in jail for violating a no longer valid vagrancy law, remained in jail 21 days after his arrest. The officer had the man taken before a local magistrate who initially sentenced him to 90 days but suspended sentence upon the officer pointing out the invalidity of the vagrancy law, the man's previous sentence, and the length of imprisonment already served. This incident was called to the attention of the Chief of Police who told the probationary officer he did not like being told how to run his department. Shortly thereafter the police officer's employment was terminated as being "not in the best interest of the City". The officer sued the city, among other grounds, on the theory that he had been wrongfully discharged. The trial court summarily dismissed the suit. Decision Summary judgment against the police officer was improper because at trial he may be able to prove that his "at will'" employment was contractually modified by the city's personnel manual and personnel rules and that his dismissal violated the provisions of that http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Labour Law Reports Online Brill

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/united-states-of-america-usa-4-r0KTDh4VXW

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
eISSN
2211-6028
DOI
10.1163/221160286X00237
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Termination of employment ― "whistleblowing" HEADNOTES Facts A newly hired police officer who was in probationary status discovered that a man sentenced to 10 days in jail for violating a no longer valid vagrancy law, remained in jail 21 days after his arrest. The officer had the man taken before a local magistrate who initially sentenced him to 90 days but suspended sentence upon the officer pointing out the invalidity of the vagrancy law, the man's previous sentence, and the length of imprisonment already served. This incident was called to the attention of the Chief of Police who told the probationary officer he did not like being told how to run his department. Shortly thereafter the police officer's employment was terminated as being "not in the best interest of the City". The officer sued the city, among other grounds, on the theory that he had been wrongfully discharged. The trial court summarily dismissed the suit. Decision Summary judgment against the police officer was improper because at trial he may be able to prove that his "at will'" employment was contractually modified by the city's personnel manual and personnel rules and that his dismissal violated the provisions of that

Journal

International Labour Law Reports OnlineBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1985

There are no references for this article.