 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hantu v. Onan Corp.2/5/2001
Onan Corporation terminated Nicolae Hantu's employment for workplace misconduct. Hantu sued Onan, alleging that the termination was a reprisal for filing discrimination and workers' compensation claims. Following trial, the district court found that Hantu failed to present credible evidence that his termination was a reprisal for engaging in protected conduct under the Minnesota Human Rights Act or the Workers' Compensation Act and entered judgment for Onan Corporation. Hantu moved for amended findings or, alternatively, a new trial. The district court denied the posttrial motions, and Hantu appeals.
FACTS
Nicolae Hantu began work for Onan Corporation in 1993 as a sheet-metal machine operator. Effective January 1, 1998, Onan Corporation reclassified all hourly positions in its plant, and Hantu's job classification changed to "Fabrication I, Skill Block I" in the sheet-metal department. Hantu was dissatisfied with the classification and approached his supervisor to request an increase in pay and skill block. His supervisor, who was newly assigned to the department, told Hantu that he would not raise anyone's hourly wage until he understood the "lay of the land".
On March 15, 1998, Hantu chipped his tooth while at work and, the following morning, obtained medical treatment before reporting the injury. Because failing to report a workplace injury before obtaining medical treatment violated Onan's written policy, Hantu received a written warning. As a consequence of the written warning, Hantu was disqualified from posting for any new positions for one year, thereby restricting his eligibility for reclassification to a different pay band. On April 30, 1998, Hantu filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming that Onan discriminated against him with respect to compensation based on his national origin.
On August 20, 1998, Hantu sustained a face injury while at work. Onan determined the injury resulted from incorrect handling of sheet metal and issued a second formal discipline, a final written warning, on August 26, 1998. As a consequence of the final written warning, Hantu was suspended from work for three days and excluded from any promotions for two years. On the same day he received the final written warning, Hantu filed a second EEOC complaint claiming Onan had taken disciplinary measures against him as reprisal for filing his first EEOC complaint.
In October 1998, a co-worker reported that Hantu had violated Onan's "Treatment of Others at Work" policy by calling him a "moron." During the investigation, Hantu was admonished that name-calling was not acceptable.
He was also told that because employees' complaints are confidential, he should not attempt to determine who had made the complaint. Hantu broke the confidentiality policy by attempting to determine from co-employees the name of the person who had reported him. As a result of this violation, Onan issued a second final written warning to Hantu on November 23, 1998. Hantu was informed that a further violation of any company policy would result in suspension followed by immediate termination of employment.
On November 10, 1998, Hantu sustained a third work-related injury and made a claim for workers' compensation benefits. About November 30, 1998, one of Onan's vendors for temporary labor informed Onan that Hantu had threatened its employee. Onan conducted an investigation, during which it suspended Hantu for three days. After concluding that Hantu had physically threatened the temporary employee, Onan terminated Hantu's employment effective December 3, 1998.
Hantu and Onan negotiated a settlement o
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|