This paper examines the legal issues surrounding the termination of a public employee — referred to as Uriah — who was fired for working as an exotic dancer on weekends. The analysis covers both the plaintiff's and defendant's arguments, focusing on Fourteenth Amendment Due Process protections, property and liberty interests in public employment, and the ambiguous application of a "discredit to the City" moral clause. Drawing on case law including Skelley v. State Personnel Board (1975), the paper concludes that Uriah's discharge was unjustified due to the City's failure to provide adequate Due Process and its inability to demonstrate concrete harm from his off-duty conduct.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
The legal issues presented by the firing of Uriah may appear to be simple but, in reality, they 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.
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 a 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 Uriah might offer is that the City's actions also impinged upon his liberty interests. 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 extent that his ability to procure future employment was endangered. Uriah can argue that he has the right to work and earn a living and that the City's actions 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 weekend employment as an exotic dancer did not in any way discredit the City and that, in fact, his outside employment had no effect on his public duties (Papandrea, 2010).
"City's discredit standard and justification for firing"
"City fails to prove discredit or provide due process"
"Evolving law on public employee rights and moral clauses"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.