Court Opinion

ID: 9544428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:55:33.467207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:59.310855
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MILLS, dissenting: As the majority clearly points out, Kunz “does not contest the findings of fact nor that the charges against him were proved.” Not only did he sack out on the job and use work time for personal business, but he disclosed a confidential test to someone who was to later take it! Surely, such breach of conduct by one in a supervisory capacity is indisputable cause for discharge. In fact, palpable grounds — in aces, spades, and trumps. The Secretary of State, or any other State agency charged with statutory duties and service to the taxpayers, should be able to rid the public trough of freeloaders who demonstrate such patently unacceptable calibre. I do not read DuFrenne as narrowly as do my brothers. Their interpretation of the supreme court’s standard in that case equates it to a straitjacket. Their reading is so restrictive that under virtually no circumstance could a reviewing court overturn a commission’s decision. That cannot be. To my view, the 75-day suspension as a punishment in this case is both a farce and ludicrous. Such action is indeed “arbitrary, unreasonable, and unrelated to the requirements of the service” and should be reversed. I dissent.