IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY FOR RIDGEWAY COUNTY
__________________________________________
JamesGardai :
Petitioner :
:
v. : Case No.: RSC-CV-4521
:
RIDGEWAY DEPARTMENT OF : :
TRANSPORTATION :
Respondent :
RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
dev_Typ, the Ridgeway Department of Transportation, by and through the Department of Justice,
answers the Administrative Complaint pursuant to the Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure as
follows:
1. Admitted that Petitioner was employed as an Assistant Secretary.
2. Admitted that Petitioner was employed beginning in or around May 2022; Respondent
denies any characterization of “seasoned operator.”
3. Admitted that the Department maintains internal disciplinary structures; denied that such
structures require all employment decisions to be made for cause.
4. Admitted that Petitioner was terminated pursuant to 2 R. Stat. § 3324.
5. Denied. Respondent denies that public employees have a guaranteed expectation of
continued employment.
6. Admitted that no reason was provided; Respondent states that no reason is required under
2 R. Stat. § 3324.
7. Admitted, but denied that such notice is legally required.
8. Admitted, but denied that such disclosure is required under law.
9. Admitted, but denied that any opportunity to respond is required under an at-will
termination.
10. Admitted.
1
11. Denied. Respondent lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegation and therefore denies same.
RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S INTRODUCTION AND ARGUMENT
To the extent the Introduction and Argument sections contain legal conclusions, Respondent
denies all allegations inconsistent with the express terms of 2 R. Stat. § 3324 and applicable law.
Specifically, the respondent denies:
1. That this Court may review an at-will termination where the statute expressly bars such
review;
2. That 2 R. Stat. § 3324 is unconstitutional;
3. That Petitioner possesses a protected property interest in continued employment;
4. That general statutory provisions override specific statutory authority;
5. That the existence of disciplinary procedures limits the State’s authority to terminate at
will.
Respondent further denies any reliance on non-binding or non-controlling authorities, including
decisions from jurisdictions outside Ridgeway or the United States.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
I. Lack of Jurisdiction
A. Petitioner’s claim is barred as a matter of law.
B. 2 R. Stat. § 3324 explicitly provides that at-will terminations “may not be
reviewed by any court.” Accordingly, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
II. Petitioner’s Failure to State A Claim
A. Petitioner fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The termination
was lawful under governing statute, and no procedural protections are required for
at-will separation.
III. No Protected Property Interest
A. Petitioner has no protected property interest in continued employment. Under
Bishop v. Wood, “a property interest in employment can, of course, be created by
2
ordinance, or by an implied contract,” but where no such entitlement exists under
state law, no property interest is present (Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 344
(1976). Here, 2 R. Stat. § 3324 establishes at-will employment, foreclosing any
such entitlement.
IV. Statutory Authority Controls
A. Where a specific statute governs a subject, it controls over general provisions. 2
R. Stat. § 3324 expressly authorizes at-will termination and cannot be overridden
by generalized statements regarding employment.
V. Petitioner’s Constitutional Claims Fail
A. The petitioner’s claim fails constitutionally because no property interest exists,
the statute is lawful exercise of legislative authority, and no due process
protections attach to at-will employment
VI. The Petitioner’s Reliance On Non-Controlling Authorities Is Improper
A. Petitioner relies extensively on non-binding authority, including cases from
outside Ridgeway and non-U.S. jurisdictions. Such authorities are not controlling
and do not override statutory law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, The Honorable dev_Typ, by and through the Department of Justice as
representing the Ridgeway Department of Transportion prays this Honorable Court:
A. Dismiss the Administrative Complaint with prejudice;
B. Find that 2 R. Stat. § 3324 bars judicial review;
C. Deny all relief requested by Petitioner; and
D. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
/s/ dev_Typ
The Honorable dev_Typ, Esq.
D: dev_Typ
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this , a copy of the foregoing motion was Apr 23, 2026
submitted to opposing counsel via electronic submission.
/s/ dev_Typ
4
