|
Title: What is the flaw in the Court of Appeals reasoning that Section 1985(2) did not provide a remedy for Haddle? Post by: may129 on Jan 27, 2018 What is the flaw in the Court of Appeals reasoning that Section 1985(2) did not provide a remedy for Haddle?
Title: What is the flaw in the Court of Appeals reasoning that Section 1985(2) did not provide a remedy for Haddle? Post by: gomeza on Jan 27, 2018 Because employment at will is not constitutionally protected property for the purpose of the Due Process Clause does not mean that Mr. Haddle was not injured in his property, under Section 1985(2), when the defendants conspired to have him fired in retaliation for his grand jury cooperation. The terms injured in his person or property in Section 1985(2) refers to existing principles of tort law that provide a remedy for interference with at-will (contractual) employment relationships.
|