 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Farzami v. State6/14/2002
pplication of the correct rule of law[,]" it will not be overturned on appeal. Tamashiro v. Control Specialist, Inc., 97 Hawaii 86, 93, 34 P.3d 16, 23 (2001) (citation omitted). Farzami's arguments on appeal, that the Employer did not comply with Dr. Wagner's recommendation to separate Farzami from his nemesis co-workers, that Farzami continues to suffer sequelae of his psychological stress injury, and that the Employer made it difficult for Farzami to utilize his sick leave and vacation leave to seek treatment for such sequelae, do not change our conclusion in this respect.
2. Farzami also contends the Employer "terminated [Farzami's] employment in violation of HRS § 386-142." On this issue, the Board found as follows:
9. [Farzami] was a "limited term appointment" employee, which meant that his contract for employment with Employer had a start and end date that was renewable at the end of the specified term.
10. [Farzami's] term had an expiration date of June 30, 1996.
11. In or around November of 1995, [Farzami], along with many other limited term appointment employees within Employer's department, were notified of Employer's decision not to renew their contract for employment when their upcoming terms expire.
12. Employer's decision was based on an October 19, 1995 executive directive from the Governor that limited term appointments not be renewed due to the State's budget deficit.
13. There is no evidence that [Farzami] was suspended, discharged, or otherwise disciplined solely because he suffered a work injury.
14. There is no evidence that the non-renewal of [Farzami's] limited term appointment occurred solely because he suffered a work injury.
The Board concluded thereon, in relevant part:
We have found no evidence that Employer unlawfully suspended or discharged [Farzami] solely because of his work injury. In this case, [Farzami's] limited term appointment was not renewed at the end of the term due to fiscal constraints.
Accordingly, we conclude that Employer did not violate HRS [§ 386-142].
" n view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record[,]" Igawa, 97 Hawaii at 406, 38 P.3d at 574 (citations and internal block quote format omitted), and in light of Farzami's concessions on appeal that his appointment was a "limited term appointment[,]" that his employment beyond June 30, 1996 was possible only through renewal of the appointment, and that "there is absolutely no dispute that the governor through executive order of Oct/9/95 [(sic)] eleminated [(sic)] all [limited term appointment] positions by Jun/96 [(sic),]" we conclude the Board's findings of fact on this issue were not clearly erroneous. Id. Because the Board's conclusion of law on this issue was "supported by the . . . findings of fact and by the application of the correct rule of law[,]" it will not be overturned on appeal. Tamashiro, 97 Hawaii at 93, 34 P.3d at 23 (citation omitted). Farzami's allegation on appeal, that when the Governor reinstated the limited term appointments in Farzami's division, Farzami's was the only limited term appointment not filled because the division head was under investigation for financial improprieties and was therefore "doing everything to clean up the program from unsatisfied employees[,]" does not change our conclusion in this respect.
3. Farzami also appeals the Board's denial of his motion for reconsideration and for reopening to take further evidence. In his motion, Farzami urged the Board to take further evidence and to reconsider its decision in light of that further evidence. On appeal, Farzami argues that the Board
Page 1 2 3 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|