AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Wrongful Discharge - In General
The plaintiff had worked as a county sheriff’s office correctional officer for 14 years before he was arrested for DUI, striking a vehicle, and leaving the scene of an accident. When he reported the arrest to his employer, the sheriff suspended him without pay and began termination proceedings. A Merit Board had exclusive authority to terminate sheriff’s office employees. While the proceedings were ongoing, a state court granted the employee’s motion to suppress and quashed his arrest. The Board then voted to fire him. A state trial court vacated that decision as too vague to allow for judicial review and remanded. The Board again voted to fire him, and the trial court again remanded based on a defect in the Board’s composition. It had then been almost seven years since the sheriff suspended the employee without pay. Rather than wait for a third Board decision, he filed a federal lawsuit, claiming that the “protracted” proceedings violated his substantive due process rights. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit. The employee had not met the “high standard” for stating a substantive due process claim. Employment rights, the court stated, are not fundamental rights and the plaintiff identified no specific independent constitutional violation. The eight-year process to date was not so “arbitrary” or “outrageous” as to violate substantive due process. Indeed, the “convoluted proceedings” were evidence that the employee received “repeated and efficacious” opportunities to challenge his termination. Campos v. Cook County, #18-3472, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 23292, 2019 WL 354058 (7th Cir.).
A village’s mayor and governing board fired the police chief without any notice of good cause or any form of hearing, violating his employment contract. He sued them for allegedly violating his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. A federal appeals court overturned the dismissal of the due process claims. The police chief possessed a protected property interest in his continued employment. The defendants were the village’s policymakers, and the chief received no pre-termination notice or hearing despite the fact that there that there was ample opportunity to provide them. These facts were sufficient to prove a federal civil rights due process claim against the officials and the village. The defendants’ arguments based on cases excusing liability for the absence of pre-deprivation due process if the deprivation is the result of a “random, unauthorized act by a state employee, rather than an established state procedure,” and “if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available” were rejected. Bradley v. Village of University Park, #16-3456, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 20959, 2019 WL 3121844 (7th Cir.).
The plaintiff claimed that town officials conspired against him and violated a Massachusetts state civil rights statute by depriving him of his protected property right of continued employment with the town’s police department. A federal appeals court, however, ruled that summary judgment was properly awarded to the defendants. The town manager hired someone to investigate allegations of misconduct by the then-police chief. During the investigation, he uncovered evidence of alleged wrongdoing by the plaintiff, an officer at the time. After a follow-up investigation, the plaintiff was fired. An arbitrator later reversed that decision. The plaintiff retired soon after and filed a lawsuit against the town manager and the investigator. The federal appeals court found that the plaintiff offered little evidence beyond “bald speculation” for the existence of a conspiracy and failed to show that his constitutional rights were interfered with by “threats, intimidation, or coercion,” as required by the state civil rights statute. Thomas v. Town of Salisbury, #18-1102, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 33381 (1st Cir.).
A former employee of the District of Columbia claimed that she was discharged based on accusations that she had improperly influenced the bidding process for the District's healthcare contracts. In particular, she claimed that the District then violated her Fifth Amendment due-process rights by leaking these allegedly false accusations to the press and denying her an opportunity to refute them, such as through a name clearing hearing. The appeals court also held that precedent did not mandate a rigid minimum-duration rule governing how long a former government employee must be unemployed before she can claim that the government's actions had the broad effect of largely precluding her from pursuing her chosen career. Therefore, the appeals court rejected the employer’s argument that two years of unemployment is never sufficient to establish that the plaintiff has been deprived of her liberty interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the District’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, affirming a jury verdict for the plaintiff. Campbell v. District of Columbia, #16-7077, 894 F.3d 281 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
A county employee claimed that she was among those selected to be laid off in retaliation for exercising her rights as an employee, to interfere “with her holding an elected office as a Retirement Board Trustee,” to attempt to coerce “and influence” her “political activity as a Retirement Board Trustee” and retaliating against her because of her “complaints about violations of her activity directed to labor organizing County workers.” Because she did not exhaust her available internal administrative remedies before filing a civil action against her employer, summary judgment against her was upheld. A Labor Code section, which does not require a litigant to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a civil action, applies only to claims before the Labor Commissioner, the court held and did not modify the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. Terris v. County of Santa Barbara, #B268849, 20 Cal. App. 5th 551, 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 407, 2018 Cal. App. Lexis 128.
A man assigned to work as a court security
officer was employed by a federal contractor rather than directly by the U.S.
Marshals Service, but the Marshals Service had the power to remove him from his
position. When he was fired for allegedly leaving his post when ill without
obtaining permission or being relieved, he sued, claiming a violation of his
due process rights. A federal appeals court held that the plaintiff did not
have a private right of action for violation of his due process rights similar
to the type of claim recognized under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, #301, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Nor was he covered by
civil service protections. It found, however, that the trial court erroneously
found that it did not have jurisdiction over his claim under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 702, which allows a person to bring an equitable
claim challenging arbitrary and capricious action of an administrative agency
in federal district court and waives the government’s sovereign immunity with
respect to such claims. He could therefore pursue his claim that the Marshals
Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in removing him. Atterbury v. U.S.
Marshals Service, #14-2805, 805 F.3d 398 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
A county decided to
terminate one of its custodial employees based on perceived poor performance,
and did so without providing her with a pre-termination hearing as she claimed
she was entitled to under the county's personnel policy and an implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing. The Idaho Supreme Court upheld summary judgment
for the defendant county, as the employee failed to show any contractual
relationship with the county entitling her to a pre-termination hearing. The
evidence showed that she was an at-will employee who could be fired at any time
for any reason. Nix v. Elmore County, #41524, 2015 Ida. Lexis 103.
A city employee working as a general foreman
placed orders for materials with an allegedly politically connected firm, and
was later arrested and charged with theft of city property and violation of
personnel rules. The employee claimed that the investigation improperly
targeted him while protecting the firm and its owner for political reasons. A
city human resources director allegedly told the employee's union
representative that if he didn't resign, he would be fired, that any hearing
would be a "sham," but that if he resigned, he would be rehired once
acquitted of the criminal charges. He resigned and was acquitted, but was not
rehired. Upholding the dismissal of the former employee's lawsuit, a federal
appeals court found that his wrongful discharge claim was untimely and barred
by the statute of limitations and that there was no protected property interest
in rehiring for public employment. O'Gorman v. City of Chicago, #13-2877, 2015
U.S. App. Lexis 1185 (7th Cir.).
Three ex-fire chiefs appealed grants of summary
judgment on their due process claims challenging their terminations. A federal
appeals court held that all of the plaintiffs were at-will employees under
Missouri state law who had no property interest in their continued employment,
and they were therefore terminable at will. There was no stigma attached to their
terminations sufficient to deprive them of a liberty interest. Additionally,
their individual capacity claims against certain defendants alleged no
constitutional deprivation. Crews v. Monarch Fire Protection Dist., #13-3070,
2014 U.S. App. Lexis 21792 (8th Cir.).
Claims for wrongful termination and defamation
filed by five former part-time and seasonal village police officers against the
county defendants, who did not employ or supervise them, were frivolous from
the beginning, requiring the county defendants to litigate continuously at
taxpayer expense for years. Accordingly, the trial court's award of $63,990 in
attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing county defendants was within its
discretion. Carter v. Incorporated Village of Ocean Beach, #13-815, 2014 U.S.
App. Lexis 13865 (2nd Cir.).
A nurse who had worked as an independent
contractor for California's correctional department sued over her termination
without explanation and her inability to find other work within the department
because of negative job references. The federal appeals court ruled that the
department had not created any constitutionally protected interests in
continued employment by merely setting performance review procedures in place.
There was no affirmative grant of tenure to the plaintiff or any assurance of
future employment. Any liberty interest, further, would have been in her
profession as a nurse not a placement with a particular employer. Blantz v.
Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., #11-56525, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 16940, 36
I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 671 (9th Cir.).
A woman who was fired from her independent
contractor position as a nurse sued correctional officials after she was unable
to find other work with the correctional system because of negative job
references. A federal appeals court ruled that the simple fact that the agency
had instituted performance review procedures for independent contractors did
not create any constitutionally protected property interests for such
contractors, Even if there had been a constitutionally protected interest in an
independent contractor's job, the plaintiff would have to show a guarantee of
employment by the government or an affirmative grant of tenure, neither of
which occurred here. Blantz v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., #11-56525,
2013 U.S. App. Lexis 16940 (9th Cir.).
A former federal probation officer sued the U.S.
government, claiming that he was improperly fired. The reason given for his
termination was that he was negligent in the supervision of a convicted
defendant who was killed while on release pending sentencing. The Court of
Federal Claims' dismissal of the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction was upheld by
a federal appeals court on the basis that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
(CSRA) applied to classify the plaintiff as a member of the "excepted
service," barring him from pursuing such a lawsuit. The law applies to all
branches of the federal government, not just to employees of the Executive
branch, as the plaintiff argued. It applied to him as an employee of the
Judicial branch. Semper v. U.S., #12-5003, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 18880 (Fed.
Cir.).
Just before a Naval Criminal Investigative
Service employee was to be transferred from California to Washington, D.C., she
submitted a questionnaire to serve on a California state grand jury, and was
chosen to serve for a year. The Navy allowed her to serve and paid her salary
under a federal statute, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6322(a). It instructed her, however, not
to reapply for another term on the grand jury. She did, however, and was
appointed to serve for a second one-year term. The Navy then placed her on AWOL
status and withheld her pay, subsequently terminating her. A federal appeals
court held that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) erred in rejecting her
claims for back pay on the basis that she had not been "summoned" for
grand jury duty for the second year but sought it voluntarily. The CFC did not,
however, have jurisdiction to hear her wrongful termination claim. Hall v.
U.S., #2011-5119, 677 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
An
assistant sheriff was entitled to an award of back pay for the period of time
between his summary firing for alleged disloyalty and his subsequent no contest
pleas to two state felony charges (for misappropriation of public resources and
perjury before a grand jury), which made it impossible for him to continue to
be employed as a law enforcement officer. Firing him without any kind of
hearing violated his rights under California's Public Safety Officers
Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA), Government Code, § 3300 et seq., and
purported waivers of POBRA rights that he purportedly signed on two occasions
did not alter the result. Jaramillo v. County of Orange, #G043142, 2011 Cal.
App. Lexis 1397 (Cal. App.).
Police officers who worked for a Nebraska city of
under 10,000 population that was annexed by Omaha did not become City of Omaha
employees and had no rights to continued employment. The operative bargaining
agreement of the terminated officers was the one with their former employer,
not Omaha. Barnes v. City of Omaha, #07-3942, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 16922 (8th
Cir.).
City could not defeat a
wrongful termination suit because the plaintiff, a former police chief, applied
for retirement benefits. He sought retirement benefits only because the city
left him with no alternative, as he had no other income and his family needed
health insurance coverage. State ex rel. McClaran v. City of Ontario,
#2007-2100, 119 Ohio St.3d 105, 2008-Ohio-3867, 2008 Ohio Lexis 1998.
Rejecting a "class of one" in an equal
protection lawsuit, the Supreme Court holds that while government employees do
not lose their constitutional rights when they go to work, those rights must be
balanced against the realities of the employment context. Government offices
could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter.
If class-of-one claims were recognized in the employment context, any personnel
action in which a wronged employee can conjure up a claim of differential
treatment would suddenly become the basis for a federal constitutional claim.
Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, #07-474, 2008 U.S. Lexis 4705.
Fifth Circuit affirms a holding that denied
qualified immunity to a police chief that fired a detective who refused to
waive her Miranda rights as part of a polygraph exam. Termination for invoking
one's constitutional rights violated clearly established federal law. Hancock
v. Baker, #07-40794, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 1847 (5th Cir.).
Illinois police chief did not have a
constitutionally-protected property interest to continued employment, and may
not claim breach of contract in a 42 U.S. Code 1983 action. Miyler v. Village
of East Galesburg, #06-3625, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 329 (7th Cir.).
Plaintiffs had no property interest in temporary
or durational positions as correctional officers. Pina v. Lantz, #3:04CV1574,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 48837 (D. Conn.).
Massachusetts appellate court concludes that it
was lawful for a town to fire an at-will animal-control officer after she
requested enrollment in the town's health insurance plan. "Mere
eligibility for the insurance does not in any way protect the employment status
of a town employee." Parker v. Town of North Brookfield, #06-P-167, 68
Mass. App. Ct. 235, 861 N.E.2d 770, 25 IER Cases (BNA) 1283, 2007 Mass. App.
Lexis 157.
Federal appeals court applies legislative
immunity in a wrongful discharge case where council members voted to eliminate
certain jobs. Almonte v. City of Long Beach, #06-2010, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
3244 (2nd Cir. 2007).
Albuquerque jury awards a former security analyst
$4 million in punitive and $387,536 in compensatory damages. The plaintiff was
fired for cooperating with federal authorities that were investigating Chinese
cyber intelligence efforts in Operation Titan Rain. Carpenter v. Sandia Natl.
Laboratories, #D-202-CV-200506347, Bernalillo Co. NM Dist. Court (verdict
2/13/2007).
A sheriff's failure to re-employ an officer after
criminal charges against her were withdrawn is not so outrageous in character,
or so extreme in degree as would support a claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Benard v. Washington Co., #06-527, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis
80188 (W.D. Pa.). {N/R}
Former Chief of Police could sue for wrongful
termination because the city charter created a constitutionally-protected
property interest. Bolton v. City of Dallas, Texas, # 05-11141, 2006 U.S. App.
Lexis 30083 (5th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
Private employee wins federal lawsuit for
wrongful termination after sending her boss a written complaint that her
retirement plan was not being properly funded. The letter was a protected
activity under ERISA. Simons v. Midwest Telephone, #05-1120, 2006 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 82424; prior ruling at 433 F. Supp. 2d 1007 (D. Minn. 2006). {N/R}
A disabled county nurse was not dismissed within
the meaning of California Government Code 31725 when management informed her
there were no positions available that would accommodate her work restrictions,
offered her vocational rehabilitation, and then placed her on unpaid injury
leave. Kelly v. County of Los Angeles, #B176552, 2006 Cal. App. Lexis 1151 (2d
Dist. 2006). {N/R}
Federal court dismisses a $5 million wrongful
termination suit brought by the former Dallas police chief. The plaintiff
lacked a legally enforceable property right to continued employment. Bolton v.
City of Dallas, #3:04-CV-0501, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20543 (N.D. Tex. 2005).
[2005 FP Dec]
California Supreme Court upholds a retaliation
claim where an employee refused to follow a supervisor's order that she
reasonably believed to be discriminatory. The employee is protected even if he
or she "does not explicitly state to her supervisor or employer that she
believes the order to be discriminatory." Yanowitz v. L'Oreal, #S115154,
36 Cal.4th 1028, 2005 Cal. Lexis 8594 (2005). {N/R}
An unpaid municipal volunteer is not an employee
for purposes of bringing a wrongful termination actions. Mendoza v. Town of
Ross, No. A103878, 128 Cal.App.4th 625, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 452, 16 AD Cases (BNA)
1215, 2005 Cal. App. Lexis 612 (1st Dist. 2005). {N/R}
Federal appeals court declines to dismiss a civil
rights suit filed by an officer against the Board of Police Commissioners. It
was clearly established that manufacturing evidence and conspiring to
wrongfully prosecute the plaintiff would amount to a substantive due process
violation. Moran v. Clarke, #03-2055, 359 F.3d 1058, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 3628
(8th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
Federal appeals court affirms the dismissal of a
§1983 wrongful discharge and retaliation lawsuit. There was insufficient
evidence of retaliation. Rosenfeld v. Egy, 03-1320, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 20124
(1st Cir. 2003). {N/R}
Maryland holds that an employee's request to
consult an attorney before signing an acknowledgment of an unfavorable
evaluation was not protected conduct. The right of access to legal counsel in
Maryland is not a mandate of public policy to support a wrongful discharge
lawsuit. Porterfield v. Mascari II Inc., #14 Sept. Term 2002, 823 A.2d 590,
2003 Md. Lexis 245, 19 IER Cases (BNA) 1697 (Md. 2003). [2003 FP Sep]
Federal appeals court affirms $1.25 million in
compensatory and $110,000 in punitive damages awarded to a former NYPD officer
for harassment, retaliation, a forced resignation and the intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Gonzalez v. Bratton, #01-7826, 2002 U.S. App.
Lexis 21521 (2nd Cir. 2002). [2003 FP Jan]
Former police officer could sue for retaliatory
discharge; he was terminated after he filed a worker's comp. claim. Hidalgo
County v. Parker, #13-01-835-CV, 83 S.W.3d 362, 2002 Tex. App. Lexis 5633, 18
IER Cases (BNA) 1674 (Tex. Civ. App. 2002). {N/R}
Texas appeals court dismisses a suit by an
ex-deputy sheriff who alleged that he was fired because he refused to commit
perjury; the Texas legislature did not waive the sovereign immunity of counties
for wrongful termination suits. Salazar v. Lopez, #04-02-00115-CV, 2002 Tex.
App. Lexis 5697 (Tex. App. 2002). {N/R}
Where a civil service commission is the final
policy maker on personnel matters in the sheriff's office, the county is not a
proper party defendant in a damage suit alleging wrongful termination. Crockett
v. Shields, #99-35687, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 2613 (9th Cir. 2001); cert. den.
#01-743, 2002 U.S. Lexis 661 (2002). [N/R]
An terminated public employee must utilize
existing procedures and remedies before filing a lawsuit for reinstatement.
Grant v. Anchorage Police Dept., #S-8844, 20 P.3d 553, 2001 Alas. Lexis 28. [2001
FP 79]
At-will government employee could not be fired
for refusing to make a false sexual harassment complaint against a coworker.
Thorson v. Oregon, #A106804, 15 P.3d 1005, 171 Ore. App. 704, 2000 Ore. App.
Lexis 2139. [2001 FP 30]
Federal court allows after-acquired evidence that
a former police officer engaged in wrongdoing when he failed to notify police
department that witness had lied and that this failure would have resulted in
his rightful termination had it been discovered. Johnson v. City of Elgin, 2001
U.S. Dist. Lexis 2109, 85 FEP Cases (BNA) 281 (Unpub. N.D. Ill.); subseq.
decis. at 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15836 (Oct. 2001). {N/R}
California appeals court upholds wrongful
termination verdict of an untenured employee who was fired for hiring a lawyer
to bring a claim against her employer. Gelini v. Tishgart, #A082565, 91
Cal.Rptr.2d 447, 1999 Cal. App. Lexis 1123, 81 FEP Cases (BNA) 1477 (1st
Dist.). [2000 FP 46]
The discharge of an employee for refusing to
falsify resumes submitted on a bid is an exception to at-will employment
doctrine. The conduct would have been illegal. Anderson v. ITT, 92 F.Supp.2d
516, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5312, 16 IER Cases (BNA) 494 (E.D. Va. 2000). {N/R}
Supreme Court allows an untenured employee to sue
his superiors, claiming that he was fired for testifying before a grand jury.
Haddle v. Garrison, 1998 U.S. Lexis 8081, 525 U.S. 121, 119 S.Ct. 489. [1999 FP
14]
Individual managers and supervisors cannot be
held civilly liable for wrongful termination under the California Fair Empl.
& Hous. Act or at common law. Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal.4th 640 (1998). {N/R}
Texas appellate court affirms award of $100,000
actual and $1 million in punitive damages against city that terminated employee
for filing a worker's compensation claim. Porte (City of) v. Prince, 851 S.W.2d
876 (Tex.App. 1993). [1994 FP 30]
A California employer or client has an
unfettered, absolute right to discharge an attorney at any time for any reason;
see Fracasse v. Brent, 100 Cal.Rptr. 385 (1972). However, if an attorney (or
other employee) is terminated because of his adherence to a mandatory
professional duty or his refusal to violate the law or breach a rule of ethics,
public policy considerations provide an exception to the general rule, and the
attorney may sue for wrongful termination. General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior
Court (Rose), 7 Cal.4th 1164, 876 P.2d 487, 9 IER Cases (BNA) 1089 (1994).
{N/R}
Federal appeals court reverses backpay awarded to
a victim of sex discrimination. Later discovered evidence of a falsified
application voided her otherwise valid claim of wrongful termination.
Milligan-Jensen v. Michigan Tech. Univ., 975 F.2d 302 (6th Cir. 1992). [1993 FP
77-8]
Former Florida police chief settles a wrongful
discharge and defamation claim for substantial damages and a new position with
the city. Curtsinger (Claim of) v. City of St. Petersburg, 36 ATLA L.Rptr. 132
(1992). [1993 FP 94-5]
Lawful termination of employee became tortious
because of the manner in which he was treated. Appellate court sustains a
$90,000 punitive award. Ueblacker v. Cincom Systems, 8 IER Cases (BNA) 1005
(Ohio App. 1993). [1993 FP 141-2]
Having a security guard escort a terminated
employee to her car did not constitute "outrageous conduct." Wornick
v. Casas, 856 S.W.2d 732, 8 IER Cases (BNA) 1058 (Tex. 1993). {N/R}
After acquired evidence: suit for discriminatory
discharged dismissed because plaintiff concealed a theft conviction. Redd v.
Fisher, 62 FEP Cases (BNA) 465 (W.D.Tex. 1993). [1993 FP 142]
Federal appeals court upholds $120,000 in
punitive damages assessed against police chief and key subordinates, plus
backpay and legal fees awarded former St. Louis County MO officers who proved
their resignations were coerced. Angarita v. St. Louis Co., 981 F.2d 1537 (8th
Cir. 1992). [1993 FP 126-7]
Colorado Supreme Court upholds wrongful
termination suit of employee who was discharged for refusing to obey a
directive he reasonably believed was unlawful. Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz,
60 LW (BNA) 2473 (Colo. 1992). See also Petermann v. Teamsters L. 394, 344 P.2d
25 (Cal.App. 1959); Adler v. American Standard Corp., 538 F.Supp. 572 (D.Md.
1982). [1992 FP 61]
Texas jury awards $13.5 million to state employee
who was terminated for exposing fraud to state representative. Green v. Texas
Dept. of Human Services, Travis Co. Dist. Ct. #480,701; 29 (1434) G.E.R.R.
(BNA) 1293 (9/23/91).
Maryland police chief is awarded damages against
former officer who had accused him of discrimination, wrongful discharge
battery. Travers v. Dunnock, Dorchester Co. Dist. Ct. (6/12/91).
California appellate court interprets 1988
decision and allows punitive damages for the intentional infliction of
emotional distress in wrongful discharge cases. Lanouette v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.,
5 IER Cases (BNA) 993 (Cal.App. 1990).
U.S. Appeals Court holds that discharged public
employees may not recover for mental distress, absent corroborating proof of
injury. Biggs v. Vil. of Dupo, 892 F.2d 1298 (7th Cir. 1990).
Terminated police officer gets $60,000
compensatory and $100,000 punitive damages for wrongful termination. City
claimed officer's injury was not duty-incurred. Gagliano v. Baltimore Co.
Police Dept., Cir. Ct. #86-CG-3083 (1989).
Jury awards $120,000 in punitive damages against
chief and other ex-officers also obtain $130,136 in back pay. They were forced
to resign during an internal affairs investigation. [Thomas P.] Murphy [et al]
v. Kleinknecht, U.S. Dist. Ct. (E.D. Mo. 10/30/89). [Affirmed, see above]
National Conference of Cmsnrs. on Uniform State
Laws drafts proposed [Wrongful] Employment Termination Act; gives job
protections to untenured employees after one year of service. "Uniform
Employment Termination Act," Nat. Conf. of Cmsnrs. on Unif. St. Laws, [49]
IER Manual (BNA) 540:51 (1989 Draft).
Woman who was fired after complaining of low pay
scales settles her retaliatory discharge suit for $75,000. Faarthing v. Port of
Vancouver, U.S.D.C. #C87-545-TB, 32 ATLA L. Rep. 324 (W.D. Wash. 1989).
Deputy sheriff obtains $109,000 verdict for
emotional distress; transferred from tenured to exempt position, then
terminated. Krauss v. Town of Davie and City of Hacienda Village, Broward Co.
Cir. Ct. #86-4056-CU (Jan. 1989).
Police chief not liable for infliction of mental
distress for failure to reinstate a lieutenant after all criminal charges were
dropped. Hill v. City of Kinston, 374 S.E.2d 425 (N.C. App. 1988).
Federal appeals court affirms $50,000 in damages
for emotional distress awarded to a former police officer who was fired for
arresting the mayor. 4 Restatement of Torts, 2d Sec. 905. Peeler v. Vil. of
Kingston Mines, 862 F.2d 135 (7th Cir. 1988).
British courts do not follow the U.S. pattern and
usually rule against reinstated police officers who have sought damages for
anxiety and loss of reputation. Calvely v. Chief Constable of Merseyside
[Liverpool]; Park v. Chief Constable of Manchester; Worrall v. Chief Constable
of Merseyside, 97 Police Review (London) 591 (24 March 1989).
California supreme court severely restricts right
of discharged employee to sue employer for tortious discharge; punitive damages
disallowed in most termination cases. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d
654, 765 P.2d 373 (Cal. 1988).
Supreme Court limits governmental liability in
discharge and discipline cases; decisions by department heads are not always
indicative of governmental "policy" for civil rights purpose. City of
St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 108 S.Ct. 915 (1988).
Employer that induced captain to quit his civil
service job and take private position could not later terminate him without
just cause; oral promise of a permanent job was enforceable. Romack v. Public
Service Co., 511 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. 1987).
County jailer could not circumvent county
grievance procedure by requiring deputy to sign waiver of employment rights
form. Said v. Lackey, 731 S.W.2d 7 (Ky. App. 1987).
Jury must consider duty of terminated employee to
find alternative work; employer may call expert witnesses. Cassino v.
Reichhold, 817 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1987).
Federal court upholds default judgment of
$427,142 in compensatory and $200,000 in punitive damages for wrongful
discharge. Coleman v. Frierson, 607 F.Supp. 1566 (N.D. Ill. 1985).
Federal jury awards $1,272,000 against city for
"due process" violations at police disciplinary board. Melton v. City
of Oklahoma City, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D. Okla. 1985).
Mayor could remove chief without
"cause" or a hearing; city council could not object to or block
removal. Carlson v. Bratton, 681 P.2d 1333 (Wyo. 1984).
Captain, harassed into retiring by grudging city
attorney, obtains $388,000 verdict, appeals court affirms. Parrett v. City of
Connersville, 737 F.2d 690 (7th Cir. 1984); See also: Altman v. Hurst, 734 F.2d
1240 (7th Cir. 1984).
Alaska city settles suit by dismissed chief for
$716,000; suit claimed a breach of contract and due process violations. Gniffke
v. City of Dillingham, Sup'r Ct. 3rd Dist. #3AN-83-836, 27 ATLA L. Rep. 165
(Alaska 1984).
Supreme Court holds that a chief is not liable in
damages for discharge of subordinate, unless the employee's constitutional or
statutory rights were clearly established. Davis v. Scherer, 104 S.Ct. 3012
(1984).
Federal appeals court upholds termination of
deputy sheriff who refused to drop charges against the sheriff's political
supporter. $75,000 punitive damage award set aside. Berry v. Bailey, 726 F.2d
670 (11th Cir. 1984).
Former officer terminated for threatening youth
with loaded gun, awarded $350,000 compensatory and $120,000 in punitive damages
against chief and captain. William Frazier v. City of Alameda, Alameda Co.
Super. Ct. (1984).
Sex scandal ex-cop gets $12,500 for due process
violations. Suspension overturned for disparate punishment. Carino v. Courtney
et al, U.S. District Court (D. Conn. 1984).
Reinstated police officer gets backpay and
$150,000 damages for civil rights violation in separate actions. Punton v. Seattle
Public Safety Cmsn., 32 Wn App. 959 (1982); Punton v. City of Seattle, Civ.
#C82-397C, U.S. Dist. Ct. (W.D. Wash. 1983).
Abusive manner of termination inflicted
"emotional distress" on employee" jury awards $25,000
compensatory, $10,000 punitive damages. Hernandez v. Diplomat Parking Corp.
Superior Court #1361-81, 27 ATLA L. Rep. 176 (D.C. 1983).
Justice department indicts sheriff who
purportedly fired an employee for testifying against him in an earlier trial.
U.S. v. Ramon Garza, U.S. Dist. Ct., Del Rio, Texas.
Fire dept. could no discharge firefighter for
assisting another person in making a discrimination complaint. Harmony V.F.C.
v. Cmwlth. of Penns., 459 A.2d 439 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
Wrongfully terminated untenured employee recovers
record verdict of $4.5 million in punitive damages over early discharge.
Liability predicated on breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. Norton v. Kaiser Steel Corp., Super. Ct. San Bernardino Co. Cal.
#202088, 25 ATLA L. Rep. 450 (1982).
Fired without hearing or charges, contractual
public employee entitled to $20,000 in emotional distress damages in addition
to back pay. Laje v. R.E. Thomason General Hospital, 665 F.2d 724 (5th Cir.
1982).
Paramedic receives $60,000 in damages over
termination; physician sent libelous letter causing his dismissal. Strama v.
Baker, Cook Co. Cir. Ct., Chgo. D. Law Bull. 3 (4/5/82).
Appellate court allows damage suit by former
untenured employee who was fired for reporting to his superiors an apparent
violation of criminal law. Petrik v. Monarch Printing Corp., 111 Ill.App.3d
502, 444 N.E.2d 588 (1982).
Fired assistant chief recovers $288,485 in
damages and $48,010 in legal costs for wrongful discharge. Miller v. City of
Mission, Kan., 516 F.Supp. 1333 (D. Kan. 1981).
Federal appeals court affirms punitive damage
award against ex-mayor for wrongful discharge of police officer. Busche v.
Burkee, 649 F.2d 509 (7th Cir. 1981). At the trial level, the ex-mayor was
ordered to pay $10,000 compensatory and $2,000 punitive damages plus attorney's
fee to officer, who was fired without a pretermination hearing. Busche v.
Burkee, 474 F.Supp. 484 (E.D. Wis. 1979).
California Supreme Court allows tort suit by
former at-will employees who prove they were dismissed for failure to commit
acts contrary to public policy or in violation of law. Tameny v. Atlantic
Richfield Co., 27 Cal.3d 167, 610 P.2d 1330, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839 (1980).
Supreme court lets stand a $175,000 award to
worker against union for "emotional distress" in refusing to
arbitrate his termination. Sherrod v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, etc.
(Cal.App. 1979); cert. den. 100 S.Ct. 1024 (1980).
Wrongful discharge of police officer results in
civil rights verdict for just under a million dollars; court affirms verdict
but reduces damages to $367,444. Bessen v. Lock, Civil #A-76-CA-217, Bexar Co.,
Tex. (Dec. 1980).
Whistle-blowing lieutenant entitled to $20,750 in
compensatory and $28,000 in punitive damages against superiors who terminated
him. Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Georgia, 629 F.2d 3740 (5th Cir.
1980).
Federal court jury awards fired deputy $35,000
for wrongful termination; sheriff and county jointly liable. Donaldson v.
Purvis, U.S. Dist. Ct., So. Dist. of Ala. (1980).
Supreme Court affirms right of wrongfully
terminated public employee to sue his superior under federal civil rights act.
Gomez v. Toledo, 100 S.Ct. 1920 (1980).
Federal court awards back pay, attorney's fees,
and $20,000 general damages against officials who fired employee for political
reasons; anxiety and embarrassment cited. McCormick v. Edwards, 470 F.Supp. 295
(M.D. La. 1979).
See also: Civil Liability;
Disciplinary Hearings; Race
Discrimination; Racial Harassment; Sex Discrimination and Wrongful
Discharge/Discipline: Damages & Settlements.
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu