 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hanadel v. Blum2/27/2002
ned him $250 for his failure to comply with discovery.
Shortly after Hanadel filed his second amended complaint, the state moved for summary judgment. The superior court initially granted partial summary judgment, dismissing Hanadel's retaliatory discharge/whistle-blower, RICO, civil conspiracy, Title VII disparate impact, and emotional distress claims. Specifically, the court held that the RICO and civil conspiracy claims were legally insufficient and that Hanadel had failed to present admissible evidence or to show that any evidence in the record created genuine issues of fact as to the other claims. But the court declined to grant summary judgment against Hanadel on his contract and Title VII sexual harassment claims, noting that the state had failed to sufficiently brief these issues. After receiving additional briefing, however, the court granted summary judgment to the state on these remaining claims. In entering judgment, the court assessed $14,550 in attorney's fees and $2,094.57 in costs against Hanadel. Hanadel now appeals both the order granting summary judgment and the award of fees against him.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
We review a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. The judgment will be upheld only if there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
B. Collateral Estoppel Bars Hanadel's Contract Claims.
Hanadel first challenges the superior court's refusal to allow him to relitigate the claims resolved against him in arbitration. But collateral estoppel bars Hanadel's claims for tort and contractual violations arising out of his termination. The doctrine of collateral estoppel " `bars relitigation, even in an action on a different claim, of all issues of fact or law that were actually litigated and necessarily decided in prior proceeding.' " "Whether collateral estoppel or issue preclusion applies to a particular set of facts is a question of law [that] we review using our independent judgment." The superior court appropriately dismissed Hanadel's tort claim for retaliatory discharge because Alaska law recognizes no such cause of action in tort; on appeal, Hanadel attempts to re-cast this claim as a contract claim. But even if we construed this claim as asserting a contractual breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, its dismissal still would be proper because, as we explain below, Hanadel lost his contract claims in arbitration and is barred from relitigating them.
Under the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, "a valid and final adjudicative determination by an administrative tribunal has the same effects under the rules of res judicata, subject to the same exceptions and qualifications, as a judgment of a court." The collective bargaining agreement under which the arbitration proceeded provides that "the decision or award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on each of the parties." At the arbitration hearing, Hanadel was represented by counsel and was allowed to present witnesses and other evidence. And while Hanadel could have sought superior court review of the arbitrator's decision for "gross error," he failed to do so. Arbitrator Levak's decision is therefore entitled to the preclusive effects of collateral estoppel, and Hanadel's contract claim is barred by Arbitrator Levak's finding that Hanadel was terminated for just cause.
Similarly, because Hanadel could have asserted his claim for administrative leave through the grievance process, summary judgment was proper as to that claim. Although Hanadel contends that administrative leave is not governed by the collectiv
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.
|
|