Hammond v. State of Alaska, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

Robert Hammond (plaintiff) was terminated by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (the department) (defendant). Prior to his termination, Hammond was working on a project and made several complaints to the contractor, his superiors in the department, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) about the materials being used for the construction project. Hammond believed that the contract’s specifications were not being followed. Hammond’s request to be removed from the project was granted. After being transferred, Hammond continued to make allegations about the project. The allegations included corruption, fraud, and incompetence. Hammond filed charges with the FHA alleging criminal violations of federal law by department management. As a result, Hammond was placed on paid, off-site status. After an investigation, the FHA found no merit in Hammond’s allegations. A separate investigation conducted by the state of Alaska also found no merit in the allegations. A state investigator determined that there was no reasonable basis for Hammond’s allegations. A department manager, relying on these findings, terminated Hammond’s employment, noting that Hammond’s unfounded attacks challenged the integrity and competence of the department and its staff. Hammond brought a grievance under his union’s collective-bargaining agreement (CBA). The grievance proceeded to arbitration. Hammond also filed a suit in superior court against the department and multiple employees, alleging a violation of the Alaska Whistleblower Act and seeking reinstatement. The arbitrator concluded that Hammond’s discharge met the CBA’s just-cause standard. This was based on her finding that Hammond’s allegations were not made in good faith and exceeded the bounds of reason. After arbitration, Hammond pursued his superior court whistleblower action. The superior court granted the department’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the arbitrator’s decision addressed Hammond’s whistleblower claims and precluded relitigation of the claims. Hammond appealed.