 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cundy-Harris v. State Department of Veterans' Affairs12/3/1999
ersions of this meeting differ significantly. According to Cundy-Harris, after some formal niceties that included inquiring about her husband's health, King asked her what her options were. Cundy-Harris replied that she did not know. King said that as he saw it her options were either resignation or termination, stating that he needed a Human Resources Manager who he had confidence in and who was strong. King cited the Salisbury Report and Cundy-Harris' conversation with Dennis Karras as reasons for his lack of confidence.
According to King, however, the meeting did not begin and end with the requested resignation of Cundy-Harris. Instead, King asserts that he was not predisposed to "take any disciplinary action" against any DVA employees when he was appointed Director. Clerk's Papers at 85. But at the May 19 meeting, Cundy-Harris remained focused on the report and the treatment of the former DVA Director, Bergeron. He alleges that after explaining to Cundy-Harris his concerns about the Retsil facility, Cundy-Harris refused to accept the possibility that some of the women employees could have been victims of harassment or retaliation. King claims that Cundy-Harris stated, "They are making women victims, just because they are women." According to King, "I did not see any way that Ms. Cundy-Harris was going to be able to accept my philosophy and direction for the agency. As a key position in my management team, I saw no option but to have her resign her position." Clerk's Papers at 85.
Cundy-Harris resigned the day after her meeting with King. In late December 1997, Cundy-Harris met with Assistant Attorney General Doug Brown. After Cundy-Harris expressed a lack of understanding as to why she was forced to resign, she alleges Brown stated the termination was because she "questioned the validity of the report at a time when the agency wanted to move on." Deposition at 132. To support the truth of this assertion, Cundy-Harris also points out that John Lee, deputy director of the DVA, who was in charge of the second investigation at Retsil and who had concluded that Wedington should be fully exonerated, did not voice concerns about the report and retained his position.
On January 28, 1998, Cundy-Harris filed a lawsuit alleging violation of her First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. Cundy-Harris named the State of Washington, the DVA, John King and Dennis Karras as defendants and alleged that her forced resignation was retaliation for voicing concerns about inaccuracies in the Salisbury Report. Upon the defendants' summary judgment motion, the trial court dismissed Cundy- Harris' lawsuit. Cundy-Harris appeals.
ANALYSIS
Cundy-Harris contends that the trial court erred in dismissing her claims on summary judgment.
When reviewing an order of summary judgment, the appellate court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court. Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). Summary judgment is appropriate only if the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). The court must consider all facts submitted and all reasonable inferences from them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Wilson, 98 Wn.2d at 437.
Free Speech Claim
Cundy-Harris asserts that she was forced to resign as Human Resources Manager for the DVA in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment right to speak freely. The State counters that Cundy-Harris' speech is not protected under the First Amendment.
The fundamental challenge posed by pub
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|