 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hanadel v. Blum2/27/2002
e bargaining agreement, article 9 of that agreement specifically sets forth the procedures for grieving suspensions. Hanadel's failure to avail himself of those procedures precluded him from raising the issue in the present case, and summary judgment was therefore proper.
C. The Superior Court Properly Dismissed Hanadel's Same-Sex Sexual Harassment Claim.
The superior court granted summary judgment on Hanadel's same-sex sexual harassment claim because the court found that Hanadel had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We decline to consider Hanadel's challenge to this finding, since his harassment claim lacked merit on the alternative ground that the complaint failed to allege facts legally sufficient to trigger liability for sexual harassment. A claim for sexual harassment must demonstrate that the claimant was subjected to an objectively hostile or abusive work environment and that the incidents alleged occurred "because of" the claimant's sex. Hanadel's complaint fails to meet either of these threshold requirements.
To establish an objectively hostile work environment, an employee must show a "pattern of ongoing and persistent harassment severe enough to alter the conditions of employment." Hanadel based his harassment claim on four allegations: (1) that a co-worker had told him of another co-worker who had made comments suggesting that Hanadel was a homosexual; (2) that, over a three- or four- month period, an anonymous person (who Hanadel suspected was a co-worker) had made three or four hang-up phone calls to the steward's office while Hanadel was working there; (3) that Hanadel suspected unidentified correctional officers of spreading rumors about his sexual orientation; and (4) that on two or three occasions he was more severely disciplined or otherwise more harshly treated than his co-workers because he was perceived to be a homosexual.
To state a claim under Title VII, the conduct complained of must be "sufficiently severe or pervasive to `alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working environment.' " It is well established that not all harassing conduct falls under the ambit of Title VII's protections. " ` imple teasing,' offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the `terms and conditions of employment.' " Even when viewed in the light most favorable to Hanadel, the incidents that comprise his claim fall far short of the requisite threshold.
D. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Hanadel's Motion for Extension of Time.
When the state submitted its second motion for summary judgment, Hanadel moved for a four-month continuance, stating that he needed the time to obtain an additional psychiatric opinion, revise his complaint a third time, and gather other information about alleged criminal activities at Spring Creek. The state opposed Hanadel's motion, contending that none of the additional steps that Hanadel proposed to take could cure the procedural and substantive deficiencies alleged in the state's motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the motion for summary judgment alleged legal flaws in the same-sex sexual harassment claim and asserted that collateral estoppel barred Hanadel's "attempt to obtain review of the arbitrator's decision."
The superior court denied Hanadel's motion, and he now challenges that decision. But considering the nature of the evidence Hanadel claimed to be seeking and the nature of the state's underlying motion, we find nothing "arbitrary" or "manifestly unreasonable" in denying Hanadel's motion "for the reasons given in the state's opposition.
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.
|
|