 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmed v. Department of Social and Health Services8/18/2000
R>
F. Severity of Sanction
Ahmed also argues that the sanction of termination is too severe. The Board reviewed the sanction against its precedents. It looked at the seriousness and circumstances of the offenses. And, in reviewing the severity of the sanction, the Board considered the need to prevent recurrence, to deter others from similar conduct, and to maintain the integrity of the program. The Board ruled that termination was appropriate because Ahmed's pattern of behavior harmed his relationship with staff and created an atmosphere of mistrust that put patients at risk; his behavior created a hostile work environment and interfered with his ability to work professionally with the staff. These conclusions are supported by the evidence and were made after due consideration of the facts and circumstances.
VI. Failure to Consider First Amendment Issue
Ahmed maintains that the Board failed to consider his claim that he was terminated for exercising his right to speak on issues of public importance. He argued to the Board that Superintendent Lamb initially contemplated a short suspension but was 'angry and offended by her belief that Dr. Ahmed was creating difficulty for Rainier School over issues of client care with outside agencies reviewing the situation at Rainier School.' He suggested that, if Lamb's anger was a substantial factor in the decision to terminate Ahmed, her decision was inappropriate and a violation of his first amendment rights. (citing Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 , 97 S. Ct. 568, 50 L. Ed. 2d 471 (1977).
To prevail on his first amendment claim, Ahmed must show that his speech involved a matter of public concern. Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n, 138 Wn.2d 506, 517, 980 P.2d 742 (1999). If he meets this first step, the next inquiry is whether his free speech right is greater than the school's need to promote efficiency in the workplace. Benjamin, 138 Wn.2d at 517-18. If the school fails to prove that its interest in efficiency outweighs Ahmed's free speech interests, then Ahmed must show that his speech was a substantial motivating factor in the decision to terminate his employment. Benjamin, 138 Wn.2d at 518.
Even if we assume that Ahmed was speaking on a matter of public concern and that his free speech rights are greater than the school's interest in efficiency, he has not shown that his speech was a substantial motivating factor in the termination decision. Without citation to the record, Ahmed states that his 'concerns about patient welfare were precisely the reasons the employer put forward for his termination.' But this is contrary to the testimony and the Board's findings. The Board found that Lamb concluded that Ahmed's actions were abusive to patients and staff, violated policy, and created a hostile and intimidating work environment that interfered with patient care. More specifically, his failure to treat co-workers with dignity and respect interfered with his responsibility to provide for the care and dignity of patients. Because of this and his inappropriate demeanor during the review process, Lamb was unable to trust Ahmed with the patients' welfare. For these reasons, she decided to terminate him. The Board's findings show that it believed Lamb's reasons for the termination were legitimate.
VII. Collateral Estoppel
Finally, Ahmed asks us to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel to the Board's findings. Apparently, Ahmed received a favorable verdict in Federal District Court in June 1998 when a jury concluded that his termination violated his first amendment rights. Even assuming a favorable federal court decision, Ahmed's argument is
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|