Legal issues in dispute: plaintiff and defendant arguments

¶ … legal issues presented by the firing of Uriah may appear to be simple but, in reality, the issues are complex and contingent on a variety of factors. The first factor is whether or not Uriah was employed under a contract with the City. If not, a determination as to the legality of his firing must be addressed in a different manner. Regardless, of whether or not there is a contract, Uriah is still entitled to due process under existing case law regarding the hiring and firing of public employees (Skelley v. State Personnel Board, 1975). Finally, it must be determined whether Uriah's actions as an exotic dancer rise to the level of violating some form of formal or informal moral clause, either contractually or implied as a condition of his employment.

Plaintiff's Arguments

The framework of Uriah's arguments must be based upon two factors. First, he must argue strongly that as a public employee he is entitled to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (Dowling-Sendor, 2005). His employment with the City of Boca Grande is a property interest and, therefore, subject to Due Process protections. This means that before the government, which in this case is Uriah's employer, can deny him property interest it must provide him with notice of the charges against him and the opportunity to present his side of the issue. As it appears that Uriah was fired summarily he was never afforded the opportunity to defend his position. The second argument that Uriah might offer is that the City's actions also impinged upon his liberty interests as well. Uriah could argue that the City, by firing him on the basis of his exotic dancing activities, has had the practical effect of impugning his reputation or stigmatizing him to the affect that his ability to procure future employment was endangered. Uriah can argue he has the right to work and earn a living and the actions of the City have potentially endangered this right. Finally, Uriah must attack the very nature of the reasons for his dismissal. Absent a clear contract provision detailing what constitutes "activities that could discredit the City" Uriah's argument must be that his employment on weekends as an exotic dancer did not in any way discredit the City and that, in fact, his employment had no effect (Papandrea, 2010).

Defendant's Arguments

The City's arguments must begin with its contention that Uriah's activities as an exotic dancer constituted a "discredit to the City." Nothing else presented in the fact pattern indicates that there was any other basis for Uriah's dismissal. As a seven-year employee with a good work record Uriah would have been expected to enjoy continued employment but if indeed it can be demonstrated that Uriah's activities brought "discredit" to the City his prior work record would have little bearing on the decision to fire him. The City must argue that Uriah as an employee of the City has a duty to represent the City and not to engage in any behaviors that reflect negatively upon the City or its operations. Combating the Due Process arguments, the City's position would vary substantially based upon whether or not there was an existing contract between Uriah and the City; whether Uriah belonged to a Public Employees' Union; or whether Uriah was a simple at-will employee. In most public employee situations, there would be no personal contract between Uriah and the City but the likelihood of a Union contract of some nature is high. In any event, the City must argue that Due Process was fully afforded Uriah and that the firing was justifiable provided the circumstances.

Decision

Examining the case as it has been presented and without inserting any assumptions as the relationship between the two parties, the City must prove several things in order to demonstrate that its firing of Uriah was justifiable. First, it must show that Uriah's conduct was a "discredit" to the City. This is a difficult standard and one that is not clearly discernible based on the facts of the case. There is a strong likelihood that few of the City's residents are aware of Uriah's activities and, even for those who are aware, awareness does not, by itself, equate to bringing "discredit." The term is a broad one and the City must be able to demonstrate discernible damage in order to prevail. Secondly, again based on the facts presented, the City has clearly not provided Uriah with the Due Process required. Uriah, as a public employee, has Due Process rights in regard to his employment and there is nothing to indicate that the City afforded him these rights prior to his discharge.

Under the facts presented, Uriah's discharge was unjustified and he should be entitled to either re-instatement with all back pay or damages compensating him for the loss of his job and for any potential loss of future employment due to his unlawful discharge.