My Thoughts on the Claude Holland Case

OK.....here we go.

I have read countless court syllabi. There is one thing I know for sure. When reading court syllabi, we must break them down into smaller parts and decipher each part. Once each piece is digested, we can get a better view of the bigger picture. (we can't forget the footnotes)

According to the first paragraph on the first page, Claude claims that he was wrongfully terminated because he exercised his first amendment right to free speech. In the footnotes I see that there were other claims which were either dismissed or for which the plaintiffs were ordered to replead. That order and related memorandum are not included with this post. It is EXTREMELY important to note that this case only relates to an alleged violation of a first amendment right.

Part one lists the names of the involved parties and their roles. It lists some degree of background and the basic facts of the case. This includes statements made during deposition.

Part two lists the details of the claims made by the plaintiff and how the court must, in it's opinion, view the claims in light of relevant case law, etc.

Part three is the final opinion of the court.

I find it interesting that the Judge never once mentioned that Nelms broke labor law by ordering Claude to go out on comp time until he decided what to do with him.

I quote Findlaw for legal professionals:

Following Heaton v. Moore, 43 F.3d 1176 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1104 (1995), the court concluded that, under Section 207(o), "compensatory time off must be consumable by the worker on the worker’s terms.”

It seems to me that the only legal way to get Claude to stay home in that circumstance would have been to suspend him.....right? Looks like a de facto suspension to me.

I guess the Judge never mentioned it in his opinion because it is irrelavent to the first amendment claim.

The court ruled, in essence, that the first amendment right protects citizens from being punished for speaking out against the govt. when it relates to a matter of public concern, not an employee speaking out against a supervisor.

The court DID NOT say that Claudes termination WAS lawful. It just said that a wrongful termination suit had no merit in this case because, as a matter of law, there was no first amendment violation.
The court DID NOT say that Claude is mentally defective in any way. The Court NEVER addressed whether or not Claude was unfit for duty, and in fact it never came into play in this case. Statements taken during deposition relating to a psychiatrists opinion were submitted to the court, but the judge never mentioned it anywhere in his decision. It's a non-issue.

I don't think you will EVER find a psychiatrist who would be willing to give a guarantee on the future of ANYONES mental health. Regardless of your past. That could be career suicide. My opinion is that Claude was instructed by an attorney to go out on medical leave due to stress and depression. (happens all the time) Hunter set out to make an example of him because Hunter has an ego as big as a house. Hunter justified the termination by stating that it was in the best interest of public safety. A giant stack of horse shit if you ask me. The biggest mistake made by Claude was that he underestimated Hunter.

In the end, though, I don't feel a first amendment violation occurred. I think the court was proper in it's judgement.

I find it interesting that after relieving Claude of his position within the DRILL academy, bad things began to happen which resulted in the dismissal of Bob Van Meter. In my opinion, Hunter would have been smarter to get rid of that ass kissing, no good, backstabbing, lying SOB Van Meter and kept Claude.