Background and Procedural History
The case presents a suit between complainants and Dallas city as well as Terrell Bilton, Dallas police chief. As Muncy v. City of Dallas (2002) explains, a dissension arose regarding a plan to implement and reorganize the police department by transferring plaintiffs from their current command staff positions to civil service ranks which the complainants had held before prior to appointment to command staff ranks. The decision by the city of Dallas was largely disputed by the victim parties, hence filed a suit.
Conclusion (findings of the courts)
The court passed a ruling that employees should not be bound by indefinite statements such as the one pronounced by the Dallas city. The jury further reasoned that for such an employment contract to exist, there had to be an unequivocal definite intent to be bound not to revoke an employee’s tenure under clearly specified circumstances. According to the court, oral statements alleged by the plaintiff did not establish a property right which would have permitted the court to find a property interest ( Muncy v. City of Dallas , 2002). A conclusion was thus passed that the plaintiffs lacked property interest in their employment. The court having found no constitutional violation, defendants were granted motion for summary judgement. The court dismissed the 1983 section allegations filed against Dallas city inter alias. The defendants were granted motion on plaintiffs, pendent state claims, contract breach and wrongful job dismissal.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Discussion
I would have agreed with the court by considering plaintiffs motion to bar. My ruling would be correct since the city personnel rules did not create property interests for plaintiffs coupled with the consistency in excluding managerial employees such as the complainants. I anticipated the court to make the same ruling and findings for example, Jackson failed to provide convincing evidence showing a link between disposition attestation and his demotion. I expected a similar ruling for the same reasons that the plaintiffs lacked a property interest in their jobs thus were only at will employees. I would thus have finally granted defendants motion for summary judgement and deny plaintiffs motion for partial summary.
Reference
Muncy v. City of Dallas , 2001 U.S. Dist. L.E.X.I.S. 18675 (2001).
