Jearlean loses wrongful dismissal lawsuit against HDC

Jearlean John. -
Jearlean John. -

UNC La Horquetta/Talparo candidate Jearlean John has lost the wrongful dismissal lawsuit she brought against her former employer the Housing Development Corporation (HDC).

In a summary of the court’s reasons delivered on Monday, Justice Kevin Ramcharan held that John’s conduct at a meeting that led to her dismissal was “unfortunate and unjustifiable.”

Ramcharan said he accepted the HDC's narrative of what happened at the meeting.

At the trial in October, John denied she was disrespectful at a meeting of the board on March 21, 2016 – the day before she was fired.

She said she felt “ambushed” at the meeting since she had tried to find out what was on the agenda. She also denied she was “vex” because she had been sent on administrative leave on December 17, 2015, to facilitate an audit into the HDC’s operations.

John was the HDC’s managing director for six years, from 2009 to March 21, 2016, when she was fired by the Newman George-led board.

George, HDC’s chairman, testified at the trial, insisting that John was disrespectful at the meeting when asked about the leasing of two high-end vehicles – a Mercedes Benz and a Range Rover – and the board, he said, decided to fire her.

He admitted that John’s request for an agenda for the meeting was not “unreasonable,” nor did she do anything previously for him to hold the view that she would be unco-operative at the meeting.

Ramcharan said the court could understand why John would feel somewhat upset, leading to her reaction because of the circumstances in which the meeting proceeded.

He said while the HDC asserted she was not asked to defend her position at the meeting, “the fact of the matter is that she was not provided an agenda prior to the meeting and therefore was unaware as to what the meeting was about. She would be justified in feeling blindsided and ambushed.

"However, it does not excuse the way in which she reacted, but the court is of the view that it does offer some mitigation that ought to have been considered by the defendant.

“Therefore, the court is of the view that the claimant’s conduct at the meeting alone was not sufficient to dismiss the claimant,” Ramcharan said.

He also said prior conduct complained of had to be taken in its proper context and the reaction to her conduct at the meeting would be necessarily be influenced by that.

“The claimant sought to justify her actions but, in the court’s view, they are unjustifiable. In the circumstances, when considering the course of conduct of the claimant up to and including the meeting, the court is of the view that the defendant was entitled to dismiss the claimant.

“With respect to the findings of the audit, though it is not necessary to consider them, the court notes that it is of the view that none of the infractions therein, or the accumulation of them, would have been sufficient to dismiss the claimant.”

He added that even if the dismissal was not justified, the court was of the view that John failed to discharge the burden to allow it to depart from the usual measure of damages in wrongful dismissal cases.

“In those circumstances, as the defendant could have lawfully terminated the contract with three months’ notice for any reason, the maximum damages the claimant would be entitled to would be three months’ salary and other benefits.”

Of her utterances at the meeting, he also said he did not accept she did not remember if she made them as was accused.

In her lawsuit, John sought $7.5 million in compensation, $5 million for damage to her reputation and $1.42 million for the eight and a half months she had left on her contract when she was fired. She  also asked for an additional 24 months’ salary, which, she said, was the established practice at the HDC for departing managing directors.

John was paid a $62,000 salary and $36,000 in travel, housing, communications and entertainment allowances.

Included in her lawsuit was a claim that she was fired because she raised several allegations of misconduct at the HDC.

George, in his evidence, admitted that in November 2015, John wrote a letter detailing allegations which included an attempt by a former minister to influence the award of garbage disposal contracts, as well as an alleged demand by the wife of a senior government minister for refurbishment contracts for housing development.

George said he investigated the allegations and told John to follow the HDC’s procedure relating to the award of the garbage disposal contracts.

John was represented by attorneys Gerald Ramdeen, Umesh Maharaj and Dayadai Harripaul. Senior Counsel Russell Martineau, Anthony Bullock and Marcelle Ferdinand also represented the HDC.

Comments

"Jearlean loses wrongful dismissal lawsuit against HDC"

More in this section