Court holds that City is immune from police officer's claim for constructive discharge

James Herbert was investigated several times by his own Department in a manner that he charged was a violation of public policy and retaliation against him for asserting his legal rights.  He claimed that the City's conduct made his employment untenable and constituted an illegal "constructive discharge."    The Court held that his claims of retaliation and violation of public policy were not contractual rights, but rather in the nature of "tort" rights, and therefore, whether accurate or not, they could not be enforced:  the City enjoyed governmental immunity from "tort" (or wrongful conduct) claims, and they were not an implied contractual right.

The Court also ruled that the office could not pursue a Whistleblower,  or a violation of the First Amendment "1983" claim.  The Court held that he was required to sue under the Whistleblower Protection Act within 90 days of the City's wrongful conduct--it wasn't enough to sue within 90 days of his constructive discharge.