You can read more about the Eric Garrettt whistleblower case here: http://springston.blogspot.com/search?q=eric+garrett
First of all, there was no evidence presented whatsoever that showed Mr. Garrett was a threat in any way. In fact just the opposite. Loretta Broadnax was the aggressor and this was backed up by witness testimony from Keith Saddler on April 14, 2010.
Secondly, it is very clear from the record that none of these so called charges were brought about until AFTER Garrett had contacted everyone in March including Jennifer Maupin of Human Resources, yep former Deputy Mayor Rick Johnstone's daughter, Janet Black in the ethics Department, and Councilman Hal Heiner.
Third, how in the world can a sitting Judge not see the conflict of interest in this case considering that Broadnax has a history of threatening violence in the workplace, Younis was the one Garrett filed charges against, and has a questionable past herself, and even Jennifer Maupin when she testified stated that she was "only doing what she was ordered to do." Sounds like the Germany-Nuremburg defense; "I was only following orders of the furor…….. " and sadly that is exactly how things are run under the Abramson regime.
Judge Shake even used the testimony of the HR Director Bill Horning who stated that the evaluation was tied to the complaint by Loretta Broadnax and not Garrett's complaint against management.
This would maybe fly if the evidence did not clear Garrett in the charges by Broadnax and she did not have a history in the workplace even going so far as to threaten another employee with a drywall knife. Where is her psych evaluation? How is she still employed? Anyone in the workplace who would do this would be terminated immediately, and before anyone blames this on the union, the union could not save your job in this type of case.
All this because the Abramson cronies are in serious trouble with the feds when the Energy Star Program they have lied about is outed.
The argument in this case was one of "irreparable harm" and is hard to prove admittedly, however, how is there not irreparable harm in this case?
According to Shake's ruling there is no irreparable harm because Eric Garrett can always sue for more money thus reimbursing him for any harm done to him. Huh? The judge is actually telling Garrett that he should sue for more?
Interesting in itself considering that this lame Louisville government ran by the Abramson machine, and those like Younis and Ted Pullen, cost us millions in lost lawsuits.
Yet how else can there be irreparable harm? Simple.
If Garrett is forced to seek a job in the public sector the psych eval will have to be included in his medical disclosure if asked. I know firsthand how this is irreparable harm as I had knee surgery in 2007, was off work for over a year because of complications, and when I searched for work had to disclose this.
No I won't out who it was because I respect honesty. Most won't be honest and they have no obligation to be by law if you are turned down for a job.
Is this irreparable harm? You bet. It cost me a job and income.
Now what do you think an employer will think who only sees your application and sees you have been under psychiatric care? Do you think you will get an interview and the chance to explain why? Nope.
Irreparable harm is done.
What message does this send to anyone seeking protection under the whistleblower act?
It says that the government will not protect you if you use the law they provided for you. It tells an employer they have the right to retaliate against you for doing your job and alerting them to problems.
It tells us just once again in this case why having a union is important. Without it this case would be gone and no one would ever be the wiser on how things really are in Metro.
This truly is a case of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation and most certainly has and will cause irreparable harm to Eric Garrett.
Stay tuned there will be plenty more to come I assure you...........