Hartman v. City of Providence

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that relevant civil-service provisions only addressed “dismissal,” and thus “at best, [created] a property interest in the job so long as the job existed.”
• discussing difference between removal from a position and abolishment of position
• “[w]ith regard to position-directed actions, such as reorganizations or furloughs growing out of government's perceived need to conserve funds, [the plaintiff] enjoyed no comparable property interest in her employment”
• discharge or dismissal “connotes an action predicated upon some personal attribute of the employee”
• “[Cjourts cannot permit the exception to become a convenient ruse whereby a government agency, simply by affixing a label, can avoid the necessity for demonstrating ‘cause’ when it wishes to dismiss a particular employee.”
• “[S]ince there are no charges against the employee ... there would be no occasion for a hearing, and it would be idle to hold one.” (quoting Kusza v. Maximonis, 363 Pa. 479, 70 A.2d 329, 331 (1950) (internal quotation mark omitted))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).