A federal court has tossed out a lawsuit alleging that a government agency unconstitutionally interfered in another agency’s hiring and firing practices.
Recent case: Bruce Horstmann, a police officer in Alorton, was fired after his employer got a letter from the state’s attorney in St. Clair County, stating “My office will not pursue the prosecution of any case” involving Horstmann.
The police department fired Horstmann, and he couldn’t find another job because each time he applied, the state’s attorney sent the same letter to the potential employers.
Horstmann sued the state’s attorney, claiming that he and his agency were depriving Horstmann of his Constitutional right to due process.
But the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out the case, reasoning that Horstmann didn’t have the right to challenge the letters on Constitutional grounds. (Horstmann v. St. Clair County, et al., No. 07-3190, 7th Cir., 2008)
Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!
Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...
We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips. If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.
The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.
" This information is proudly provided by Business Management Daily.com: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/6865/court-tosses-suit-against-states-attorney-for-hiring-interference "
- Use this simple rule when interviewing: If it could be a slur, don't say it
- Even one employee in Texas? Then he can sue you in Texas courts
- Social Security disability doesn't mean no accommodations
- Bloomberg, court lock horns over firefighter hiring
- Use promotion committee—minus offending boss—to correct possible past discrimination