Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA — On March 23, 2022 — almost a year after the Pro Se petitioner, Leauma Ben Alefosio filed a civil complaint with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge (OALJ) on May 14, 2021 — a ruling was rendered on three motions heard on August 20, 2021: (1) Motion to Dismiss; (2) Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Request to Dismiss, all filed by the petitioner.

The civil complaint was filed by Alefosio because he believes he was wrongfully terminated by the DHR and without due process.

The ruling is as follows: the respondent’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part; the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and the respondent’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

The petitioner’s request to deny the respondent’s motion to dismiss was granted as to the Due Process Violation and Wrongful Termination charges.

In its Administrative Ruling rendered on March 23, 2022, the ALJ tribunal allowed the petitioner Leave, if he so chooses, to amend his appeal, within 30 days. The Leave, according to the ALJ, will not be granted to add new causes of actions or claims to such a second amended complaint.

Moreover, the respondent may also request by motion, if it so chooses, an order compelling the petitioner to conform his amended complaint after thirty days, but only up to thirty days.

BACKGROUND

On April 21, 2022, the petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to succinctly focus on wrongful termination and due process violation causes of actions.

The petitioner’s amended complaint was filed in conjunction with: (1) Affidavit of Leauma Ben Alefosio; (2) Office of proof number; (3) Office of proof number two; (4) Motion for leave; (5) Filing of exhibits to support offer of proof one; (6) Filing of exhibits of support offer of proof two.

The petitioner filed over 200 pages of pleadings on April 21, 2022.

In his Motion for Leave filed with the ALJ on April 21, 2022, the petitioner clarified and elaborated on “section B number 2 page 15 of 12” of the Administrative Ruling dated March 23, 2022, where it states: “The petitioner responds with the argument that he was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard concerning his erroneous classification. He contends that his entitlement to career service was “property” for which he is being deprived of procedural due process.”

The petitioner reiterated in his amended complaint that he was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before DHR issued the termination (adverse action) letter dated April 30, 2021. He pointed out that this was replicated in his addendum filed in support of his summary judgment filed on August 10, 2021.

Further, the petitioner pointed out that the erroneous classification argument does not necessarily require notice and opportunity in this particular instance. The theory came about in the early stages of the petitioner’s investigation into his employment termination.

Nonetheless, the petitioner argues that as an ASG career service employee, he is entitled to “property” and “liberty” interest in continuing employment with ASG. [Velega v. Legislature of American Samoa, 4 A.S.R.3d 145 (Trial Div. 2000)].

The Supreme Court has defined “property interest” as a legitimate expectation in continued employment in the employment context. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). In this complaint as well as in previous pleadings, the petitioner maintains that he had “property” and “liberty” interest in continuing employment with the ASG.

Furthermore, the reason for the petitioner’s termination was “unsatisfactory performance.” However, there is no evidence of any “unsatisfactory performance evaluation” or “disciplinary letters” on record as in the Office Personnel Folder (OPF) to corroborate the reason for termination.

Under ASG Personnel Policy and Administration Manual Section 12.3 pertaining CONTENTS OF OPF (Official Personnel Folder) and among the contents of the OPF for each ASG employee are (1) Performance Ratings or Evaluation; and (2) Letters of Caution, Warning, Reprimand, and similar disciplinary.

The ASG Personnel Policy and Administration Manual Section 5.3 subsection A. 2. requires evaluations of ASG Employees. A performance evaluation, which is common in every workplace, provides an objective review of the employee’s effectiveness on the job and is therefore mandatory. United States v. City of Erie, 411, F Supp. 2d 524 (W.D.Pa. 2005).                         

Moreover, the petitioner pointed out to the court that the affidavit of Director of Human Resources Lynn Pulou Alaimalo filed on August 11, 2021, was missing 303 forms, including the one signed and approved by Governor Lolo Moliga. Further, the petitioner argued that the affidavit of Michael White filed by the respondent is infested with fraudulent misrepresentation. The petitioner also filed his affidavit to refute all of Michael White’s claims.

The petitioner contends that Michael White’s claims were made with reckless disregard for the truth.

In addition, the petitioner also filed numerous recommendation letters from previous employers and supervisors, as well as education and professional training credentials which renders a stark contrast to what White characterized the petitioner in his affidavit. The petitioner comes highly recommended by former colleagues and supervisors in the legal profession, law enforcement, higher education, medical, and social science fields.                        

Following his Motion for Leave filed on April 21, 2022, the petitioner filed a Motion on Judgment on the Pleadings under TCRCP (Trial Court Rules of Civil Procedure) 15 (A) on May 13, 2022.

The petitioner pointed out that the respondent failed to file a timely response to his amended complaint filed on April 21, 2022. He argues that the respondent’s failure to file a response is evidence of a lack of any dispute of material fact and also proves the respondent’s desire to aimlessly prolong the case.

The petitioner pointed out that the affidavits filed by the respondent of Public Defender Michael White and DHR Director Lynn Pulou Alaimalo, are evidence that the respondent relies on fictitious claims, in an attempt to confuse, inflame, and mislead the court and to draw away attention from the petitioner’s damages so that relief can be delayed or denied.

In addition, the petitioner argued that the respondent has had sufficient time to provide evidence to rebut the petitioner’s claims and all that was provided was false and misleading information contained in ]White’s and DHR Director Alaimalo’s affidavits.

 The petitioner filed almost 100 copies of exhibits of documentary evidence with ALJ on April 21, 2022, and is asking the ALJ not to prolong the case any further.

The petitioner pointed out that the general principle of law is that a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted where the case is free from doubt and where a trial would be a fruitless exercise. 

In addition, the petitioner argues that a motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted because the facts are so clear and unquestioned that a trial on the merits is unwarranted.