 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hanadel v. Blum2/27/2002
"
E. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Accepting Blum's Deposition Testimony.
Hanadel next challenges the admission of Blum's deposition testimony. This was error, Hanadel alleges, because " pon reviewing the deposition transcripts of Randy Blum, it is clear that he evaded answering certain questions," and because at his deposition Blum apparently made new statements regarding an incident raised in Hanadel's complaint. But Hanadel's assertions relate to the weight and credibility of Blum's deposition testimony; not to its admissibility.
F. Hanadel's New Claims Do Not Raise Issues of Plain Error.
Hanadel's brief raises two claims not presented in the proceedings below. We do not consider issues not raised in the superior court "unless the issues establish plain error, or the issues (1) do not depend on new facts, (2) are closely related to other arguments at trial, and (3) could have been gleaned from the pleadings." We will find plain error only "if it appears that an obvious mistake `has been made which creates a high likelihood that injustice has resulted.' "
1. Hanadel's Due Process Claim
Hanadel argues that the state violated his due process rights by failing to hold either a pre-termination or pre-administrative-leave hearing. But Hanadel never requested a pre-termination or pre-administrative-leave hearing; and though represented at his post-termination hearing, he failed to assert this due process claim as a ground for relief. These facts preclude a finding of plain error and compel us to find that Hanadel has waived his due process claim.
2. Hanadel's Americans With Disabilities Act Claim
Hanadel newly asserts an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim. The ADA applies to physical or mental impairments that "substantially limit[ ] one or more of the major life activities." Covered employers must accommodate disabled employees "who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position." Arbitrator Levak found that the state had on multiple occasions encouraged Hanadel to request accommodation under the ADA but that he had refused to do so. The record reflects that the state nevertheless attempted to accommodate Hanadel by investigating whether there were other positions he could perform. The state asked Dr. Rose to determine whether Hanadel's personality disorder "constitute a mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity" and whether "there [were] available any reasonable accommodations which would enable Mr. Hanadel to perform the essential functions of his position as a Cook II in a maximum security prison." Once Dr. Rose responded that Hanadel's impairment precluded working as a Cook II in a maximum security prison, the state pursued with follow-up questions regarding whether Hanadel might be able to work in a lower-security prison or work farm, either as a cook or in any other capacity.
Because our review of the record discloses no apparent evidence of an ADA violation, we decline to consider Hanadel's argument on this point as a matter of plain error, and we conclude that he waived this point by failing to raise it below.
G. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Awarding Nominal Discovery Sanctions Against Hanadel.
Hanadel next appeals the superior court's award of discovery sanctions against him. Hanadel was sanctioned for repeatedly refusing to sign a medical history release, provide employment records, and provide more detailed answers to various questions about the allegations supporting his claims. Hanadel filed three rounds of vague ans
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.
|
|