Court Opinion

ID: 9604855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:27:33.636444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:24.633343
License: Public Domain

BURNETT, Judge,
specially concurring.
In deciding whether a public employee has been discharged for cause, a court is not limited to identifying a nexus between the employee’s conduct and a standard promulgated by the employer. Rather, the court should examine the standard itself to determine whether it impermissibly intrudes upon any legally protected interest. Here, “tending to injure the public service” is an exceptionally broad standard. It harbors a potential for infringing upon a constitutionally protected liberty interest — i.e., the right to privacy. If such an intrusion occurs, the employee’s right to privacy must be balanced against the public interest embodied in the employer’s standard.
In this case, the employee has argued that his conduct — injuring two young children in his home — was within the scope of a right to privacy and did not significantly impact upon the public interest in maintaining the integrity of law enforcement. I disagree with the employee’s basic premise. Substantial physical injury to children is not protected by any privacy interest. But even if it were, I would not disturb the Civil Service Commission’s implicit determination that the public interest in the integrity of law enforcement should be given prevailing weight in this case. Accordingly, I join in upholding the Commission’s action.