Darr v. Town of Telluride, Colo.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• relying on a statement in an employee handbook that “[njothing in these policies is intended to modify the Town’s at-will employment policy” and holding that the handbook did not created a property interest in his continued employment, regardless of how employer handled the termination
• relying on a statement in an employee handbook that \[n]othing in these policies is intended to modify the Town’s at-will employment policy\ in holding that the handbook did not created a property interest in his continued employment, regardless of how employer handled the termination
• “[A] substantive-due-process claim, if viable, requires assessing whether a governmental action is arbitrary, irrational, or shocking to the contemporary conscience.”
• “[T]he due process clause does not preclude public employers from maintaining at-will employment relationships that the employer may terminate without cause.” (citation omitted)
• “At-will employees lack a property interest in continued employment.” (citing Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 345 n.8, 345–47 (1976))
• “‘[L]iability under § 1983 must be predicated upon a “deliberate” deprivation of constitutional rights by the defendant, and not on negligence.’” (quoting Jojola v. Chavez, 55 F.3d 488, 490 (10th Cir. 1995))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).