By Gina Tabonares
Variety News Staff

THE Attorney General’s Office asked the federal court to dismiss the complaint filed by a Port Authority of Guam employee against 10 GovGuam officials handling the operation of the port.
The AGO denies any unfair labor practice committed by the officials against the complainant, Anthony Q. Sanders.
Sanders sued the 10 unnamed officials last month, citing unlawful employment practices and discrimination when the Port Authority of Guam failed to promote him.
Assistant Attorney General Phillip Isaac, in his motion, said the case should be dismissed because Sanders untimely filed the complaint before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on May 6, 2005, more than 180 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.
Isaac said the court has no jurisdiction over the case due to its late filing before the EEOC.
According to the respondents’ lawyer, Sanders was employed by the Port Authority of Guam as a stevedore on Nov. 30, 1997 and completed a probationary period on Oct. 21, 2002 through a merit system.
Thereafter, the defense said Sanders was promoted to an administrative aide position, a position developmental to the position of a marine traffic controller.
However, the promotion of Sanders and similarly situated employees were stalled when a public law about moratorium on government employee reclassification was imposed.
Isaac pointed out that there was no job discrimination and reiterated that the port is subject to all applicable laws of the U.S. government and the territory, and that the rules and regulations are approved by the Civil Service Commission.
The government lawyer said Sanders failed to state a claim upon which relief can be taken.
Sanders complained that during all relevant times, GovGuam management personnel were very much aware of the discrimination against him yet ignored the discrimination complaint and continued to fail to adequately supervise the workplace or to train employees to prevent such discrimination.
As a result of the alleged unfair labor practice, the plaintiff said he suffered substantial losses in earnings, job experience and other employee benefits that he would have received if the defendants did not breach their agreement in the employment contract.