A public official was entitled to qualified immunity for releasing a letter concerning the termination of an employee where the letter did not accuse the terminated employee of any bad faith, willful misconduct, intentional acts, waste or fraud, since the letter was not "stigmatizing." Even if the content were stigmatizing, it was not clearly established law that charges other than fraud, dishonesty, and immorality would trigger the requirements of a name-clearing hearing.
Kramer v. Cullinan - filed Jan. 3, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 14-36103
For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment