Belugawhaleman v Ministry of Justice 2020 Civ 6

Belugawhaleman v Ministry of Justice 2020 Civ 6

Date of judgment	20th December 2020
Judge	Chief Justice Seaotter
Grounds	Tort of Wrongful Termination (Article 17\)
Verdict	D held not liable for Wrongful Termination
Result
Applicable persuasive precedent	Witnesses may not be called in civil hearings, 7 Message links and screenshots are to be treated as the same piece of evidence, 9 Inherently clear expectations of rules need not be communicated for one to be fired for them, 11 Proper courtroom behavior for State Attorneys falls under this, 11 Laws relevant to all government officials, such as Dereliction of Duty, also apply, 11 Getting banned for Contempt of Court counts as “Incapacitating oneself” for the purposes of Dereliction of Duty, 12 Off the job actions may be used as proper cause for termination, 14 Employers need not announce reason for termination for it to be rightful, 15 Lower courts may not review if one’s rights were violated, even if relevant, 17

==

Introduction

[1]. The plaintiff is suing the Ministry of Justice for wrongful termination, alleging that by not properly informing him of the reason behind his termination the Ministry breached their requirement to have just cause. In addition, the plaintiff claims that he should not be terminated for actions done outside of his role as a State Attorney. Finally, the plaintiff argues that the expectations of his job were not properly discussed to demonstrate what is unacceptable behavior that warrants termination.

Facts of the Case

[2]. On November 11th, 2020, the plaintiff was an employee of the Ministry of Justice, as a state attorney. Simultaneously he was defending a client charged with Hate Speech. It was there that he was found guilty and banned for contempt of court. The ban took effect at 9:40 Eastern Standard Time, and the plaintiff was terminated 5 minutes later from his role as a State Attorney.

Current Employment Law

[3]. Before we jump into those issues, however, we must determine a few matters of law. As this tort has not been tried under before, the Court will review current employment law in SimDemocracy.

[4]. There are two general employment laws in this jurisdiction. The first is the Civil Code. Article 17 (Wrongful Dismissal) states that an employer must have “just cause for termination.” Essentially, this means that an employer must have a legal reason to terminate an employee. This makes SimDemocracy a jurisdiction in which at-will employment is not permitted.

4.1 At-will employment is predominantly used in the United States, and allows an employer to fire an employee for any reason, or none at all (except for matters of discrimination.)

[5]. Because SimDemocracy is a just cause jurisdiction, both parties enter an implied contract protected by the state. This means that the employer agrees to only fire the employee when cause is present. Due to Article 17, if this is breached it can go to court as Wrongful Dismissal.

[6]. The second general employment law is contained in the Criminal Code (S.D.C.) It is Article 79, Worker Abuse. This article makes it a crime for an employer to “violate any of an individual’s labor rights, right to strike or right to form and participate in labor/trade unions, or termination, punishment, or refusal of employment based on protected characteristics.” This mainly just makes discrimination in employment illegal, and doesnt affect this case greatly.

Procedural Matters

[7]. In the hearing, a few procedural matters were brought up. The first of which is witnesses in civil hearings. The Courtroom Procedure Act seems to bar witnesses from testifying in civil hearings. In the Criminal Trial section, the CPA specifically allows and sets procedures for witnesses, but there is no mention of them in the Civil section, leading me to believe that witnesses can not testify. I highly recommend that Parliament change this.

[8]. During the cross examination of the evidence, some of the plaintiff’s questions ceased to be related to the evidence, and more to the defense counsel presenting them. As this was a presentation of evidence, this is not permitted. Cross-examination of the evidence must be limited to questions directly related to the evidence, which the other party may answer. When the questioning attorney drifted off this, the Court struck the questions from the record, as they conflict with the procedure set by the Courtroom Procedures Act.

[9]. Finally, it was questioned if by entering a screenshot as evidence, the submitting party also submitted the message link. The Court upholds that the message link and screenshot shall be considered the same piece of evidence. This is due to its leading to the same message, and how the message link can give additional information to the court about time sent.

Expectations for Role

[10]. A matter raised in trial was if the expectations of the job need to be communicated for just cause to exist.

[11]. The Court believes that some expectations are incredibly clear, especially in a role such as State Attorney in which proper behavior in the courtroom is modeled almost every day. Additionally several laws govern certain expectations for government officials. One of the best definitions for this once again lies in the S.D.C. It is Dereliction of Duty. While this is a charge unrelated to the current one, the court will use it to define expectations.

[12]. “Dereliction of duty shall be willfully refusing to perform the required duties of a governmental position or incapacitating oneself in such a way that one cannot perform their duties.” The Court believes that being banned for contempt of court lawfully falls under the “incapacitating oneself” part. The Court will assume that the defendants expectations in this area fall under this definition.

Off The Job Actions

[13]. In the same vein as 12 is another argumentation by the plaintiff. The plaintiff argues that they should not be fired for off-the-job actions. The Court disagrees. If one’s actions off-the-job reasonably affect their performance at their job, that can be cause for termination.

[14]. Because the court has determined that (1) the plaintiff committed dereliction of duty by incapacitating themselves and (2) that leads to them not being able to properly carry out their role as a State Attorney, the Ministry had just cause for termination.

Announcement of Reasoning

[15]. The main argumentation of the plaintiff lied in the lack of announcement of just cause. The plaintiff argued that because the Ministry did not properly announce the reasoning of their termination, they invalidated their just cause and did not allow the plaintiff to properly prepare themselves for the case, thus violating their right to a fair hearing.

[16]. As for the first one, the Court disagrees. It is not required by Article 17 that the employer announce the reason for termination, so there is no legal way that announcement could be a requirement for just cause, however good practice in avoiding legal action it may be.

[17]. As for the second argument, it is not the job of the lower court system to determine if the state violated a person’s rights. That is best left to judicial review under the Supreme Court. This Court will not rule on that matter.

Verdict

[18]. The plaintiff, by being banned for contempt of court, incapacitated themselves in a way that they could not properly carry out their job as a State Attorney.

[19]. This constitutes just cause required by Article 17 of the Civil Code. The Court therefore finds the Ministry of Justice not responsible for Wrongful Termination.