2 ms·
>The city union disagrees rather strongly with that Do they? From what I understand these employees aren't being represented by the union. Also, the ruling ack
by Aunche 4y ago
>The city union disagrees rather strongly with that
Do they? From what I understand these employees aren't being represented by the union. Also, the ruling acknowledges that they did bargain with the union and are therefore not finding a breach of contract.
>Having multiple separate orders that result in an unconstitutional outcome is not really different from having a single unconstitutional order. I don’t know why you keep bringing that up; it’s not very interesting.
My point is that it's not unconstitutional for the city to fire a city employee.
- prottog 4y agoEmployment (and unemployment) by the city, which is a governmental entity, is held to a higher standard of scrutiny than private employment. It is unconstitutional for the city to fire a city employee based on arbitrary and capricious reasons, just as it would be unconstitutional for the city to impose any other sort of administrative restriction on its citizens on an arbitrary and capricious basis. Would you find it legal for the city to only issue marriage licenses to those who provide proof of vaccination?