Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): screen violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches; and (3) the public-policy exception to the at-will doctrine should apply. His arguments are not persuasive. Assuming all of Hice’s allegations as true, the city was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Both the city ordinance adopting the personnel handbook and the handbook itself clearly declare that there is no employment contract and that employment is at will. While the personnel handbook contains provisions describing methods for dismissal under certain circumstances and specifying kinds of conduct that could result in being dismissed, it does not contain provisions that an employee will not be discharged except for cause. See Mertyris v. P.A.M. Transp., Inc., 310 Ark. 132, 832 S.W.2d 823 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Gladden v. Arkansas Children’s Hosp., 292 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a clause in an insurance policy was susceptible to a construction in favor of the insured but that such a construction would be unreasonable absurd and produce results never intended or contemplated by the parties (B) holding that the pam transport manual lists certain conduct that wifi result in termination but nothing in the manual suggests that the fist is intended to be exhaustive thus it would not only be unreasonable but absurd to interpret the manual as implicitly foreclosing termination for criminal acts and wrongful conduct beyond the seven violations listed in the manual (C) holding that a statute cannot be construed in a manner that would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result (D) holding that the directors litigating position was not entitled to chevron deference but did warrant skidmore respect on certain issues where the arguments were persuasive and the agencys manual and practice had for some time consistently advanced a reasonable position (E) holding that the test for ineffective assistance of counsel in termination cases is generally the same as in criminal proceedings
Output (English): holding that the directors litigating position was not entitled to chevron deference but did warrant skidmore respect on certain issues where the arguments were persuasive and the agencys manual and practice had for some time consistently advanced a reasonable position