Constructive Discharge

Complainant, employed at a branch location, further alleged that, on August 5, 2024, she informed Respondent of her intention to resign from her position.  Complainant alleged that she felt she had no choice but to resign due to the discriminatory treatment from Respondent’s ABM that continued even after she complained to HR.  Respondent denied the allegations and asserted Complainant only complained when she resigned her employment on August 5, 2024, due to alleged sexual harassment by the ABM.  Once known, Respondent took immediate action, conducted a full onsite investigation with multiple interviews and was unable to substantiate Complainant’s allegations.  Respondent asserted that the ABM’s employment was terminated anyway due to the investigation showing a lack of leadership and empathy for staff and because he cornered a Respondent supervisor demanding to know what she said during the investigation.

Investigation produced evidence that showed Respondent’s supervisor did know about the conduct throughout most of complainant’s employment but failed to follow policy mandating that she report the conduct.  The supervisor’s reason was that Complainant feared retaliation resulting in job loss and was actively seeking comparable employment, and the supervisor believed the threat was real due to her own experience with the ABM.  This fear should have heightened the supervisor’s responsibility to report to HR.  Investigation also found that the Respondent’s internal investigation did produce corroborating testimony about the conduct of the ABM, toward Complainant and at least one customer, and that the customer spoke to Respondent’s Branch Manager, who also did not follow policy and report the conduct, allowing it to continue for the Complainant.  Investigation questioned why the Respondent’s HR did not substantiate the claim based on the corroborating testimony produced and Respondent’s response to that question showed HR’s decision may have been hindered by a bias regarding small town dynamics.  Investigation ultimately showed that the allegation about the medical information and report to HR was properly handled and no substantial evidence existed to show it violated AS 18.80.  Substantial evidence was found to support all other allegations, including a genuine dispute of fact.  The case has been referred to the Hearing Unit for review.