A. Disciplinary action against any regular employee in the classified service shall be taken only for cause, and the following procedures shall apply. Records of disciplinary action shall be maintained in the employee's personnel file and a copy given to the employee.
B. Cause for disciplinary action. A department head or the appointing authority may reprimand, demote, withhold pay increases, suspend, dismiss or otherwise discipline an employee for reasons such as, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Violation of these rules.
(2) Dishonesty in the performance of duties.
(3) Consumption of alcohol or the illegal use of drugs on the job.
(4) Reporting for work unfit for duty.
(5) Recklessness or negligence on the job.
(6) Inefficiency.
(7) Tardiness or absenteeism.
(8) Engaging in unauthorized work or activity while on duty.
(9) Failure, refusal or inability to perform a normal quantity and quality of work.
(10) Failure to obey a reasonable order, either written or oral, provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an employee to commit an unlawful act.
(11) The use of abusive language to a supervisor, coworker or the public.
(12) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.
The question that was posed to me is what happens if Burke takes a plea deal? Would his taking a plea deal equate to him being convicted of a crime? If the answer is yes, then could the town of Bethel bring disciplinary action against him?
This whole thing is getting stranger by the minute...
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
