Opinion ID: 78803
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: alan alonso’s claims

Text: Appellant Alan Alonso joined the Army National Guard in June 2007. He provided his supervisor with dates on which he was required to attend training. Those dates included September 15 and 16, 2007, as well as February 9 and 10, 2008. His request for time off on those dates was approved. In February 2008, however, HVA confirmed, through information provided by Sergeant First Class Kevin R. Sherman, Michigan Army National Guard, that Alan Alonso did not actually attend training on the dates specified above. On February 19, 2008, Alan Alonso suffered a medical emergency while at work. He was taken to the emergency room, and he was diagnosed with “altered mental state” and “possible seizure.” When he was released from the emergency room, he was taken for a drug screen test. He tested positive for hydrocodone, a mind-altering and function-altering substance for which he had a prescription. On February 27, 2008, Alan Alonso was terminated for two violations of HVA’s Code of Conduct: (1) lying about his attendance at Army National Guard training; and (2) testing positive for a mind-altering and function-altering substance while at work. He initiated HVA’s internal grievance process the same day. He requested a GRB hearing, at which he contested both proffered justifications for his termination. The hearing was held on May 8, 2008. On May 9, 2008, HVA provided him with written notice that the GRB had upheld his termination. Upon completion of the GRB process, Alan Alonso filed a lawsuit against HVA in the United 6 No. 09-1812 Alonso v. Huron Valley Ambulance, Inc. States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. He alleged that HVA: (1) discriminated against and wrongfully discharged him because he is a member of Michigan’s Army National Guard in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”), 38 U.S.C. § 4323, and Michigan’s Military Leaves Reemployment Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 32.271; (2) retaliated against him because he filed a complaint with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“MIOSHA”) in violation of Michigan’s public policy; (3) retaliated against him for filing an EEOC complaint after being demoted on July 15, 2007, for “an activity protected under the state and federal statutes;”4 and (4) caused him to suffer humiliation and emotional distress in violation of Michigan tort law by disclosing facts about his drug test results, medical condition, and reason for termination.