[Mad Dawgg]

So the worker took them to court. The court ruled he didn't violate his contract AND the city has to pay him damages but in your little world this isn't legal proof?

Hell it isn't any wonder. You trot out a contract that clearly states one must engage in unlawful activities and a first year law student can tell you that to be guilty of breaking the law (aka deemed to engage in unlawful activities) one must have his day in court and lose first. Its why newspapers use the term "Alleged" as in: "The alleged murderer could not be located for questioning."

You do understand the difference right?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

And naturally if the terminator can produce NO evidence of unlawful activity they'd lose a civil suit (where, note, the standard of proof is 'preponderance of evidence,' not 'beyond reasonable doubt') by the terminatee - that is far short of your claim that "they must first have a finding from a court."

So the worker took them to court. The court ruled he didn't violate his contract AND the city has to pay him damages but in your little world this isn't legal proof? [empty bluster deleted]

It's far from establishing your unsupported claim that "they must first have a finding from a court" - for reasons I clearly explained.