Sorry to see this happen to such a distinguished member of the fire service.

Still, as in "At Will" employee, is he entitled to a "Skelly" hearing? Especially if Michigan is a "Right to Work" State?

At any rate, it looks like the City is trying to back track on what they've done.

Mike

You are giving away your roots... Skelly is a California thing... the rest of the country calls it a Loudermill hearing... but it is not required for at-will employees. It is unclear from what I have read whether Chief Marinucci was at-will. It is possible even for an at-will employee's due process rights to be violated... just not their Loudermill/Skelly rights... Complicated area and Chief Marinucci deserves better that to be forced out under a shroud of secrecy.

I agree Curt. Now that I work in an "at-will" state (Arizona), the rules of engagement for these situations becomes more clear. Any fire department must still follow their own policy and practices to terminiate an employee. If a step process is used in the conduct policy, then that overrules the "at-will" status from what I understand. Due process for taking away property rights still exist in our department.

I worked with Chief Marinucci while with a department near his in Michigan and have high regard for his professionalism. This case is puzzling to say the least.

Like AZ, NM is an "at-will" state, with case law that interprets certain employer actions as creating an employment contract between employer/employee, which then becomes that standard for terminations. The NMSC has, for example, found that an employee handbook created an implicit contract as to how the employer will proceed with a termination process, and found that that employer violated that contract - a little bit more open to interpretation than the comments from Scott in AZ - NM' standard not requiring such a formal scheme as specific/detailed policies.

Even with a very open application of the 'at-will' employment law, NM courts have made it very clear that 'at-will' cannot, and will not, be a substitution for otherwise unlawful conduct. Employer actions that violate typical EEOC regulations for example (race, national origin, etc), cannot be dismissed as at-will termnation. The courts also include other activity such as whistle-blower activity, and fraud/estoppel arguments as well - and the all time favorite, sexual harassment.

Chief Marinucci's employers silence on the issue makes me wonder what the Tom Bodett result will be, it's been my experience that it can go either way - employers may opt to exercise at-will options but may be lacking the fortitude to say publicity "I don't need a reason to terminate him, and that's what I did" however, in NM that's usually because they are trying to avoid unemployment benefit payouts; the other group that Lukas behind the deafening silence are the ones who have engaged in something that is subject to claim/suit, and they are just scurrying around trying to make sure they covered their tracks.

That is something that trial lawyers get excited over, time to file discovery request for production & Riggs & start noticing dates/times for depo's - silence be damned, depositions cut to the bone when done properly !