Court Opinion

ID: 9507769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:25:20.867186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:23.515630
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE HARRISON,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
I would first hold that there was sufficient cause to terminate the appellant due to his physical impairment. Given his admitted condition, the City had, in my opinion, an unrestricted right to terminate him under Section 7-33-4107, MCA, (which applies to the qualifications for the office that he held), and Section 7-33-4122, MCA. In my opinion, Sections 7-33-4121 and 71-33-4124, MCA do not apply to ter*414mination, only to the suspension for neglect of duty or violation of fire department rules. I would find that the appellant had an opportunity for a hearing as provided by our law and it was waived by him.
As noted by the majority opinion, the principal question here is whether the appellant had a property interest in his job such that he can only be terminated by complying with due process requirements, citing Reiter v. Yellowstone County, Montana (1981), 627 P.2d 845, 38 St. Rep. 686. Here the District Court found that the appellant voluntarily retired, so in my opinion the issue of a property interest and due process issue need not be discussed.
Having so found I would find no necessity to discuss the second issue raised herein.
I would uphold the finding of the District Court.
MR. JUSTICE GULBRANDSON joins in the foregoing dissent of MR. JUSTICE HARRISON.