The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A WOMAN fired from the Airport Authority within days of filing a complaint against one of its executive officials is taking civil action against the entity and the official, The Tribune has learned.

Amber Anderson-Thomas wants aggravated and vindicatory damages, interest and costs for her dismissal from the government agency in January 2012 after filing a complaint against Deepak Bhatnagar, financial adviser to the Airport Authority’s board.

She was employed at the government agency for six years before being let go.

Bhatnagar had been served a criminal summons by police in July 2012 informing him that he was being privately prosecuted for allegedly assaulting her on January 3, 2012.

Because the complaint was not prosecuted by police, Anderson-Thomas went the route of private prosecution through the law firm of R A Farquharson and Co.

Bhatnagar stood trial before Magistrate Guilimina Archer who, three weeks ago, found him guilty of assaulting Anderson-Thomas.

He was informed that he would be conditionally discharged at a status hearing on April 15 provided that he provide proof he paid a $150 donation to the Ranfurly Home for Children and $500 in legal fees to Anderson-Thomas before the mentioned hearing.

The incident took place outside the airport after the security guard allowed a taxi cab driver to park in the financial adviser’s designated parking spot.

Bhatnagar, on the day in question, had aggressively approached Anderson-Thomas and repeatedly pointed his finger in her face before he grabbed her identification badge and held it when Anderson-Thomas attempted to walk away.

It was in that moment that Bhatnagar struck Anderson-Thomas in her chest.

According to a writ of summons filed and served on Bhatnagar at the sentencing hearing on March 16, “on or about January 19, 2012, shortly after the attack by the first defendant (Bhatnagar), the plaintiff (Anderson Thomas) was unlawfully terminated by the second defendant (Airport Authority) and not given a reason for said dismissal.”

The writ further notes that the “second defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of the first defendant in that they hired the first defendant as one of their employees. The second defendant, their employees and/or agents were negligent and/or in breach of their statutory duty and common law duties owed to the plaintiff” and “due to the said assault, negligence, breaches of statutory and common law duties owed to the plaintiff, she has suffered much loss and personal injuries.”