After class I kept thinking about the sentence the class made for issue and how it ended unresolved.
The final sentence at the end of class was:
"Whether a state employer that terminated an employee for conflict of interest was entitled to qualified immunity and protection from civil liability when acting objectively reasonable."
The problem with this is sentence is that it does not state an issue, it states a matter of fact. It is already determined that a state employee is entitled to qualified immunity and that the employer is protected from civil liability when acting objectively reasonable.
The real issue in my opinion is then as follows:
"Whether a state employee's position is protected under qualified immunity, or is an employer acting objectively reasonable and protected from civil liability when the employee has a conflict of interests."
In response to this post, I pose the question of whether or not the concept of "hometown advantage" is relevant when judges analyze the application of the objectively reasonable standard?
ReplyDeleteFor instance in the Kipps case, if the venue would have been in a rival county or state to LSU, would a judge have ruled the same using the objectively reasonable standard?