31. Personnel.U.S. Appeals Court TERMINATION PLRA-Prison Litigation An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute. When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation. Reform Act Coley coley Noun Brit an edible fish with white or grey flesh [perhaps from coalfish] v. Grant County, 36 Fed.Appx. 242 (9th Cir. 2002). A corrections officer who suffered from a hearing impairment hearing impairment n. A reduction or defect in the ability to perceive sound. and who had been terminated sued a county, alleging wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act Americans with Disabilities Act, U.S. civil-rights law, enacted 1990, that forbids discrimination of various sorts against persons with physical or mental handicaps. (ADA Ada, city, United States Ada (ā`ə), city (1990 pop. 15,820), seat of Pontotoc co., S central Okla.; inc. 1904. It is a large cattle market and the center of a rich oil and ranch area. ) and related statutes. The district court district court dismissed the case and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the county had valid non-pretextual reasons for terminating the officer, based on poor performance and non-hearing-related safety concerns. The court held that the county was not obligated ob·li·gate tr.v. ob·li·gat·ed, ob·li·gat·ing, ob·li·gates 1. To bind, compel, or constrain by a social, legal, or moral tie. See Synonyms at force. 2. To cause to be grateful or indebted; oblige. to make any reasonable accommodations for the officer's hearing impairment because the officer did not request it, and his disability did not prevent him from asking for an accommodation. (Grant County Jail, Oregon) U.S. Appeals Court TERMINATION FREE SPEECH Fiesel v. Cherry, 294 F.3d 664 (5th Cir. 2002). A former state corrections officer sued corrections officials, alleging they violated his free speech rights by terminating him in retaliation for an incident in which the former officer accompanied a co-employee to an internal affairs department interview and advised the co-employee. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the officials and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the officer's speech was not a matter of public concern because it was made solely on behalf of a co-employee, and in the context of his encounter with investigators. (Goree Unit, Texas Department of Criminal Justice- Institutional Division) |
|
||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion