Beach v. Handforth-Kome

[EMPLOYMENT LAW]

In Beach v. Handforth-Kome,[1] the supreme court held once an employer discovers reasonable grounds for dismissal, the employer need not provide additional procedural protections.[2] Beach was fired from her job at a health clinic when the clinic’s director discovered that she had falsified prescription drug records.[3] Beach sued, alleging a breach of the implied covenant of good faith since she believed her employer retaliated against her for her suggestions about improving clinic security.[4] On appeal, Beach argued that her termination was not objectively fair.[5] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that Handforth-Kome had conducted a methodical review of the records that showed that the records were falsified and that Beach was responsible for the aforementioned falsification.[6] Accordingly, since the methodical review uncovered reasonable grounds for dismissal, according to the court, additional procedural protection was unnecessary.[7] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held once an employer discovers reasonable grounds for dismissal, the employer need not provide additional procedural protections.[8] Beach was fired from her job at a health clinic when the clinic’s director discovered that she had falsified prescription drug records.[9]

 



[1] 314 P.3d 53 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 57.

[3] Id. at 54.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 55.

[6] Id. at 57.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 57.

[9] Id.

Beach v. Handforth-Kome

[EMPLOYMENT LAW]

In Beach v. Handforth-Kome,[1] the supreme court held once an employer discovers reasonable grounds for dismissal, the employer need not provide additional procedural protections.[2] Beach was fired from her job at a health clinic when the clinic’s director discovered that she had falsified prescription drug records.[3] Beach sued, alleging a breach of the implied covenant of good faith since she believed her employer retaliated against her for her suggestions about improving clinic security.[4] On appeal, Beach argued that her termination was not objectively fair.[5] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that Handforth-Kome had conducted a methodical review of the records that showed that the records were falsified and that Beach was responsible for the aforementioned falsification.[6] Accordingly, since the methodical review uncovered reasonable grounds for dismissal, according to the court, additional procedural protection was unnecessary.[7] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held once an employer discovers reasonable grounds for dismissal, the employer need not provide additional procedural protections.[8] Beach was fired from her job at a health clinic when the clinic’s director discovered that she had falsified prescription drug records.[9]

 



[1] 314 P.3d 53 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 57.

[3] Id. at 54.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 55.

[6] Id. at 57.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 57.

[9] Id.