Local

Where were the port-a-potties? Glenn O. Hawbaker responds to wrongful termination suit

Glenn O. Hawbaker responded to a former employee’s wrongful termination lawsuit against the company Friday.
Glenn O. Hawbaker responded to a former employee’s wrongful termination lawsuit against the company Friday. Centre Daily Times, file

An attorney for Glenn O. Hawbaker responded on Friday to a former employee’s claims that the company forces workers to urinate at various work site locations.

Former civil designer Jonathan Bamat filed a lawsuit in September claiming he was fired by the company for urinating in front of his co-workers.

Bamat said he was bitten by an insect while working for the company and eventually developed a large welt on the back of his neck. He did not want to report the incident, but was forced to by his supervisor, according to the lawsuit.

Five days after the bite, Bamat said he was drinking large amounts of water because of his medication to treat the bite and had to “urinate badly” with no port-a-potties nearby, so he urinated between two truck doors.

“Had plaintiff not relieved himself in this frequently used manner, he would have been forced to urinate in his clothes in front of co-workers,” Bamat’s lawsuit said.

Hawbaker attorney Schaun Henry disagreed.

“There was one portable toilet 248 yards from plaintiff’s location and a separate portable toilet 348 yards from plaintiff’s location,” Henry wrote. “Plaintiff could have used the truck he was urinating in front of to drive to either portable toilet within seconds.”

Henry said Bamat urinated just feet from two female employees while standing next to a construction road open to public view.

“This is the first incident in which plaintiff’s supervisor observed an employee urinate in open view next to a haul road in over 20 years of working for GOH,” Henry wrote.

While Bamat’s supervisor was preparing an incident report, the project manager fired Bamat after he confirmed Bamat urinated in front of the employees.

“At no point did plaintiff attempt to explain any nexus between his public urination and his alleged disabilities and medications,” Henry wrote.

Bamat is suing the company for wrongful discharge, invasion of privacy, discrimination and retaliation under section 504 of the rehabilitation act.

Henry asked for the lawsuit, which has been moved to federal court, to be dismissed entirely.

  Comments