DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO UTAH PUBLIC OFFICERS’ AND EMPLOYEES’ ETHICS ACT
... DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO
UTAH PUBLIC OFFICERS’ AND EMPLOYEES’ ETHICS ACT
UTAH CODE TITLE 67, CHAPTER 16
This disclosure is provided pursuant to the requirements of the Utah Public Officer’s and Employees’
Ethics Act, which prohibits a public employee from participating in their official capacity or re ...
LEGAL LESSONS: Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows Inducing
... law reasonable notice” of the termination (or pay for that same period in lieu of such notice), unless the
employment agreement specifies otherwise. In the case of a relatively new employee, one might think that
the notice period would be short; however, if the employee was induced to leave previous ...
37371 bytes - 10th Circuit Opinions
... removal of Bass’ commission caused Pagosa Lakes to terminate his employment. To the
extent Appellants are arguing that the removal of his commission did not lead to the loss
of Bass’ job with Pagosa Lakes, the argument is factual and we will not consider it in this
draft - York University
... of the individual’s work.
(c) Chance of profit/risk tests that review if there is a guarantee of payment or a risk of
not receiving full payment if the work is not provided as required.
(d) Integration tests that review whether the individual is fully part of University
processes or has very limited ...
12 legal references
... employee, for example, might be when the employee turns up too late for work,
performs poorly at work, is disloyal and other similar factors.
Connick v. Myers
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees who speak on matters of possible public concern within the workplace context. It was first brought by Sheila Myers, an Orleans Parish, Louisiana, assistant district attorney (ADA). She had been fired by her superior, District Attorney Harry Connick Sr., when, after receiving a transfer she had fiercely resisted in private conversations with him and his chief assistant district attorney, she distributed a questionnaire to her fellow prosecutors asking about their experience with Connick's management practices. At trial, Judge Jack Gordon of the Eastern District of Louisiana found the firing had been motivated by the questionnaire and was thus an infringement on her right to speak out on matters of public concern as a public employee. After the Fifth Circuit affirmed the verdict, Connick appealed to the Supreme Court.The justices reversed the lower courts by a 5-4 margin. Justice Byron White wrote for the majority that most of the matters Myers' questionnaire had touched on were of personal, not public, concern and that the action had damaged the harmonious relations necessary for the efficient operation of the district attorney's office. William Brennan argued in dissent that the majority's application of precedent was flawed. He argued that all the matters in the questionnaire were of public concern, and feared a chilling effect on speech by public employees about such matters would result.The case was the first in a line considering the right of public employees to speak contemporaneously with their employment that had started with Pickering v. Board of Education 15 years earlier in which the Court sided with the employee. It introduced the test of whether the employee's speech had been on matters of public concern to the balancing of employer and employee interest prescribed in the earlier case. The two would guide the Court's interpretation of later cases such as Rankin v. McPherson In the 1990s and 2000s (decade), Waters v. Churchill and Garcetti v. Ceballos, the latter with some similarities to the circumstances of Connick, would further clarify it.