Court Cases Court Cases
AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NV 
NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY  EO  NR  PR  DC  US 
 
View Summary
 
Richard Greeno, Appellant
vs.
Little Blue Valley Sewer District; Marsha J. Murphy; Mary Lou Smith; Robert E. Hertzog parties immediately above-individually and as members of the Board of Trustees of Little Blue Valley Sewer District; Fred Arbanas as a member of the Board of Trustees of Little Blue Valley Sewer District; Ray White ,Appellees.


Click Here to Read the Full Case Summary
 
Issues:
Public employee, policy and procedure, disparate treatment, due process.
 
Case Summary:
Richard Greeno appeals a lower court's ruling in his suit against his former employer, the Little Blue Valley Sewer District. A newly-elected supervisor of the district terminated Greeno's employment with the approval of the district's board of trustees. Greeno filed suit, claiming the district violated the provisions of its employee handbook and denied him due process in the issue. Officials with the sewer district responded with a motion for summary judgment.
 
Decision of lower jurisdiction:
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that Greeno served as an at-will employee of the district and as such his employment could be terminated without notice. The court emphasized that the district's employee handbook was unilaterally approved by the district's trustees and was not the product of negotiations with a recognized union. Greeno now appeals.
 
Outcome:
Greeno loses. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the ruling of the district court. The appeals court ruled that Greeno did not have a protected property interest in continued employment. Therefore, the provisions of the handbook did not apply to his case and he was not entitled to due process. The appeals court concluded the lower court did not error in its handling of the case.