| Ehtya v. The Universal Triumvirate
|Supreme Court: 10/22/14 - 12/10/14|
|Full Case Name||Aaron Ehtya v. The Universal Triumvirate|
|The barring of wrongful termination of private employees by businesses is not unconstitutional as it is a standard commerce regulation. The requiring of a statement from a company for each employee that is terminated is unconstitutional as it conflicts with the right to (or right not to) speak freely.|
|Majority Opinion||Esteemi Evantsu|
|First Nation Consulting v. The Universal Triumvirate, General Defense v. Ryan Bleitze, Universal Triumvirate v. Ehtya|
Law 2014-III-05 was passed which made "wrongful termination" a crime defined by: "No person may be terminated from an official job for political, personal, or otherwise inappropriate reasons. Termination of a job shall require a summary as to why the termination has occurred. Wrongful termination shall be considered a class II misdemeanor." Aaron Ehtya, a prominent business owner, sued the government claiming this was "improper implementation of the government in the internal affairs of my business" and that it was an abuse of his private affairs.
The case was quick as the two sides simply presented their opening statements and facts and then wanted the court to simply make a decision from that.
The court ruled that the key provision of the law was not unconstitutional (though the section requiring employers to publish why they are terminating any employee was). Chief Justice Evantsu wrote that:
"The court upholds wrongful termination as constitutional by virtue of it being on level with standard labor regulation, minimum wage, or keeping financial records - all regulations which are mandated by the government (or have been) and are not unreasonable or unconstitutional. However, the court does rule the line, "Termination of a job shall require a summary as to why the termination has occurred," unconstitutional by virtue of the cause that it violates a private employer's rights to the freedom of expression (or choice to not express), and that, more seriously, it will create a precedent of explanation for private actions. The mandating that government employers must do the same is appropriate by virtue of the fact that the government is (and should be) free to set their own standards internally (as may private enterprises).
The court must however advise that this bill does begin a tradition of infringement and government scrutiny and that, if taken too far, this bill would clearly defy common logic and the means for a proper system in both economics and government."