 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hanadel v. Blum2/27/2002
s position.
B. Procedural History
In February 1997, one month after being placed on administrative leave, Hanadel filed a complaint with the Alaska Commission for Human Rights (commission), alleging sex-based discriminatory treatment. Hanadel cited three occasions on which he was "given negative attention" - once for having been late three times and twice for making inappropriate personal entries in the facility log book - when, he alleged, a female Cook II had committed similar infractions without receiving "negative attention." The complaint also alleged that he was twice reprimanded based solely on negative allegations about his work made by another female co-worker and that management had "taken [her allegations] as fact."
The commission determined that Hanadel's allegations were "not supported by substantial evidence." The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for which the commission is a referral agency, also considered Hanadel's claim of sex discrimination and "determined that the evidence obtained during the investigation does not establish a violation of the statute."
On May 15, 1998, the date that his termination became effective, Hanadel brought an administrative complaint through his union. This grievance was heard before Arbitrator Thomas Levak in May 1999. During the hearing Hanadel, who was represented by his union, presented testimony from Dr. Dennis Greene, a clinical psychologist, who challenged Dr. Rose's conclusion that Hanadel had a personality disorder. In response, however, Dr. Rose testified about the problems with Dr. Greene's methodology, noting among other deficiencies that the tests that Dr. Greene used are not designed to detect psychopathology. Dr. Rose also apparently testified that Hanadel had failed to tell Dr. Greene about the radio incident that precipitated his placement on administrative leave.
After a three-day hearing and post-hearing briefing, Arbitrator Levak found that Hanadel had been terminated for just cause and therefore the state had not violated the union contract. Regarding the competing psychological testimony, Arbitrator Levak found that Dr. Rose's conclusions were derived from validity-based scales and that his testimony was clear and convincing, while Dr. Greene's report and testimony were "far less compelling" because his conclusions were "grounded, in significant part, upon misleading information provided him by [Hanadel]." Deeming the state's decision "good faith, non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary," Levak denied and dismissed Hanadel's grievance.
In May 1998 Hanadel also filed actions against the state and Blum in both state and federal court, alleging a broad range of tort, contract, and statutory violations. In his second amended complaint to the superior court, Hanadel asserted claims against the state for wrongful placement on administrative leave, wrongful discharge, retaliatory discharge/whistle-blower, civil conspiracy, RICO violations, and same-sex sexual harassment under Title VII, as well as claims against Blum for "gender discrimination and disparate treatment" under AS 18.80.220 and Title VII, outrage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The discovery phase of this case was extremely contentious, since Hanadel refused to provide releases for medical and employment records or answer interrogatories to the satisfaction of the defense. After several months and numerous rounds of refusals and incomplete answers, the superior court ordered Hanadel to comply with the state's discovery requests, and awarded the state $100 in costs. When, in spite of this order, Hanadel still refused to provide the records-release authorizations, the court sanctio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|