Paul Blakeslee Case Study

730 Words 3 Pages
In 2008 Paul Blakeslee was employed with Shaw Environment and Infrastructure, a contracting firm with numerous contracts across the globe. Paul was the manager of the employees designated to complete a contract in Alaska worth over $100 million. Specifically, the company was responsible for working on Fort Richardson and Fort Wainwright, both United States Army bases. Shortly after entering the position, Paul became aware that the project manager for the Alaskan project, Richard Lantz, owned at least one third of the company that was leasing the equipment Shaw was utilizing for the job. The equipment was valued at approximately $2 million and the company was often not bidding competitively; yet, was still being awarded the leasing contracts. …show more content…
Lantz’s reasoning for the necessity of ceasing the employment of Paul was to save money. (Schaefer, 2013) Approximately one week after being threatened with termination, he received a letter from Shaw telling employees to report any suspicious or adverse dealings within the organization. The following is an excerpt from Blakeslee’s affidavit explaining why he sent the letter, taken from lexisnexis.com, "I wrote my letter dated September 19, 2008 because when I learned that Mr. Lantz owned American Leasing, I immediately believed that his ownership was illegal and a conflict of interest. I formed this opinion in August 2008 after the purchasing agent Ron Babbs told me that Lantz owned the company. I started working on my letter in August and I sent it on September 19 after editing and revising the letter over several weeks" (Schaefer, 2013) (Exhibit 9; Shaw Letter, 2011). Paul was then terminated on the morning of October 6, …show more content…
With the exact final amount being $3,432,032. When The Anchorage Daily News interviewed Paul, he acknowledged that it is unlikely that he will ever actually receive any of the money. He explained that it is likely Shaw will file an appeal and delay the process even further; however, no such evidence has arose in my research supporting this statement. Paul then continued on to pronounce that it was never about the money, it was purely about holding the company accountable and ensuring a similar instance would not occur

Related Documents