The Tribune

By PAVEL BAILEY

A FORMER teacher who was let go over alleged rape charges he was later acquitted of, has been awarded $24,000 in costs by the Supreme Court after the government was found in breach of contract.

In a court ruling last Friday, Leon Palmer, a trained teacher formerly employed by the Ministry of Education, was awarded the figure by Supreme Court Justice Indra Charles after the government was found in breach of contract during his supposed interdiction for alleged rape charges as well as for backpay for after his acquittal.

The plaintiff was arrested and charged for rape on January 23, 2013 at which time he was allegedly interdicted by the Ministry of Education. The ministry agreed to pay him half his salary during this interdiction and he was asked not to return to work at that time.

However, while a letter was prepared for his interdiction, it was never signed nor dispatched to the proper authority or given to the plaintiff, which resulted in him continuing to receive his full salary until October 2013 when payments stopped.

After being acquitted of rape charges on November 30, 2015, Palmer claimed the government had breached his contract. He also argued the government had failed to redeploy him and refused to pay his emoluments and salary, inclusive of increments which he said were unlawfully withheld from October 2013 to the present day.

While the government conceded it did in fact owe Palmer gratuity from his contracted employment period of September 11, 2009 to August 26, 2012, the Office of the Attorney General - which was listed at the defendant in the case - argued the government had not breached any contract agreement from those dates onwards. It was also argued Palmer was on a month-to-month contract and as such had no claim to payment from when he was formally discharged from duty in October of 2013. They also alleged Palmer was not interdicted.

The judge ruled that as the defendant permitted the plaintiff to continue working after his contract had expired on August 26, 2012, to his arrest date in January 2013, they had tacitly agreed to renew his contract for another two years in accordance with Palmer’s application for renewal on March 30, 2012. The court found the Ministry of Education’s claims that Palmer was operating on a month-to-month contract were disingenuous considering all the evidence.

The judge ruled the government did owe Palmer his salary and emoluments up to August 25, 2014 — inclusive of 15 percent gratuity for his contractual period with interest at the statutory rate of 6.25 percent per annum. He was also awarded $24,000 in costs.

Additionally, the court found Palmer was never formally interdicted by the Ministry of Education as he had never formally received a letter indicating such from the principal of the school and received full payment until October 2013. The court said that at best, the ministry had only contemplated interdiction. The court also ordered the government to pay its portion of NIB payments to the National Insurance Board up to August 24, 2015.

However, the judge ruled against Palmer’s claims that he was entitled to be reemployed by the ministry after he was acquitted of the rape charges, as the court found the Ministry of Education was under no legal obligation to re-employ him once his contract had ended.

“This is an unfortunate case,” the judge noted. “By all accounts, Mr Palmer was an exceptionally hard-working and talented teacher. Had it not been for the allegation of rape, to which he was eventually found not guilty, he might have still been employed by the ministry.

“That being said, he was not interdicted by the ministry. He continued to work until the allegation of rape when he was advised not to return to work. That was about five months into the unwritten two-year contract. It is a fact that the ministry hires teachers and sometimes takes months or even up to a year to formally execute their contractual appointment.

“However, the defendant is under no legal duty to continuously re-engage an employee after his fixed term contract has expired. After it comes to an end, an employer is at liberty to decide whether or not that employee would be re-employed. “The defendant chose not to continue with the services of Mr Palmer but they should have paid him up to the expiration of the two-year unwritten contract which ended on 25 August 2014. He is also entitled to 15 percent gratuity on this contract which I so order.”

On the issue of costs, she ruled: “Mr Palmer claims costs in the sum of $27,000 in the event of him being successful. The defendant was prepared not to seek costs in the event of their success. Mr Palmer was not successful on every point and, therefore, I will make an award in the amount (of) $24,000. This represents fair and reasonable costs.”