Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Chana Boyko was a teacher who resigned in lieu of termination from the Anchorage School District after violating a "last chance agreement." She alleged the School District breached a resignation agreement in which it promised not to release negative information about her to prospective employers. Appellant sued, claiming that she was terminated as a result of disability discrimination and that the School District's comments made in violation of the resignation agreement breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and interfered with her prospective contractual relations. The superior court granted the School District summary judgment on all claims, concluding that the District had nondiscriminatory reasons for termination and that its comments were protected by statutory immunity. Appellant appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the claims of statutory immunity, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and interference with prospective contractual relations, because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding these claims. The Court affirmed summary judgment on the discrimination claim. View "Boyko v. Anchorage School District" on Justia Law

Appellant Tom Oels was a sergeant with the Anchorage Police Department (APD) since 2002. In 2005, he stated his intent to retire and be rehired while retaining the rank of sergeant. Appellant was told that under AMC 03.30.068(A)(4) he could retire, but could only be rehired as an entry-level patrol officer, not as a sergeant. Appellant filed a complaint with the Employee Relations Board (the Board) alleging: (1) that MOA and the Anchorage Police Department Employees Association (APDEA) had violated AMC 03.30.068(A)(4) by requiring that sergeants be rehired as patrol officers, and (2) that APDEA had breached its duty of fair representation. The Board heard the matter and decided against Appellant on both counts. Appellant appealed the ruling to the superior court which, sitting as an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the Board’s decision. The superior court held that although the plain meaning of the ordinance was ambiguous, the underlying legislative history demonstrated that the provision was intended to allow for flexibility to rehire sergeants as patrol officers. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the superior court’s analysis that the municipal code defined "rehire" as returning to the same position or class of positions, but the Court ultimately reached a different result. The Court found that the ordinance was not ambiguous; by its terms, it did not require sergeants to be rehired as entry-level patrol officers. The Court therefore reversed the superior court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Oels v. Anchorage Police Dept. Employees Association" on Justia Law

Appellant Shirley Shea underwent a medical procedure in 1984 that resulted in intermittent soreness in her legs, back, and pelvic region. She began working for the State of Alaska in 1993, which required her to sit at a desk for prolonged periods of time. Shea’s pain began to worsen and in 2001, it forced her to leave her job. Appellant filed for both nonoccupational and occupational disability benefits, claiming that the periods of prolonged sitting at work aggravated her condition. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Appellant's medical records indicated that prolonged sitting at work was one of the factors contributing to her chronic pain. The ALJ concluded that because Appellant's prolonged sitting at work was "simply one among many contributing factors" to her chronic pain, it was not "of particular causal significance" to her condition. Appellant appealed to the superior court, which upheld the ALJ's decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that Appellant must prove only that her employment was a substantial factor (not the substantial factor) in causing her disability. The Court remanded the case back to the ALJ for a reevaluation of the evidence. View "Shea v. Alaska" on Justia Law

A worker was involved in a fight in a logging camp bunkhouse. He did not file a report of injury related to the fight for over a year. When he finally filed a report of injury, he alleged that he had injured his hip, lower back, and ear in the fight. His employer denied the worker benefits because he did not give timely notice of the injury. The worker then alleged that he had verbally informed his supervisor of the injuries. After a hearing, the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the worker’s claim was barred because he did not give his employer timely notice of the injury. The Board performed an alternative analysis assuming the worker had given timely notice and decided that the claim was not compensable. The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed the Board’s decision. Because the Commission correctly determined that substantial evidence in the record supports the Board’s decision on the compensability of the claim, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision. View "McGahuey v. Whitestone Logging, Inc." on Justia Law

An Alaska state trooper was terminated in part due to dishonesty. The Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA) filed a grievance on behalf of the discharged trooper and then invoked arbitration. An arbitrator reinstated the trooper, ruling that the State did not have cause to terminate him. The superior court upheld the arbitrator's ruling. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the arbitrator committed gross error and that the reinstatement of the trooper was unenforceable. Upon review of the arbitrator's decision and subsequent superior court ruling, the Supreme Court held that the arbitrator's award in this case was not enforceable as a violation of public policy: "the State should be free to heighten its enforcement of ethical standards. . . We are [. . . ] troubled by the arbitrator's suggestion that the State's past lenience toward minor dishonesty requires it to be permanently lenient." Because the arbitrator's award was neither unenforceable nor grossly erroneous, the Court affirmed the superior court and the arbitration decision. View "Alaska v. Public Safety Employees Association" on Justia Law

Terminated employee Karen Crowley appealed a superior court's dismissal of her contract claims against her former employer, the Alaska Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services (OCS). Ms. Crowley was hired in 2000 as a non-permanent social worker. She was granted permanent status after a six-month probation. Toward the end of her probationary period, Ms. Crowley's supervisor began receiving complaints about Ms. Crowley's job performance. An investigation was initiated. The report of the investigation found seven specific allegations against her. In 2002, the director of OCS terminated Ms. Crowley's employment. Subsequently Ms. Crowley filed suit in 2004, alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful retaliation and discrimination based on age and race. In 2006, the superior court granted summary judgment to OCS on all counts. Ms. Crowley appealed to the Supreme Court in 2007, which then reversed and remanded the superior court's judgment with respect to the good faith and fair dealing and retaliation claims. The remaining issues were retried, and judgment reentered in favor of OCS. Upon re-review of Ms. Crowley's claims, the Supreme Court found that she showed neither an objective nor a subjective breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the superior court's judgment dismissing her case. View "Crowley v. Alaska" on Justia Law

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) fired Appellee Paul Smith for misconduct. Smith, an equipment operator, shot and field-dressed a moose while on duty in 2005 and received a thirty-day suspension. In 2006, he took a fuel tank stand from his workstation, later claiming that he thought he received permission to do so. At about the same time, 100 gallons of fuel disappeared from the same station. DOTPF concluded that Appellee had stolen the fuel and terminated him. After unsuccessfully filing union grievances and complaints with the state Human Rights Commission and federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Appellee filed suit, alleging breach of contract, civil rights and tort law violations. The superior court granted summary judgment to the state on all counts. Appellee appealed the superior court's ruling on his civil rights and contract claims. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record and the arguments Appellee made on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decisions as to both of Appellee's claims. View "Smith v. Alaska" on Justia Law

In 1999, Appellant-Employee Kenneth Monzulla hurt his back at work. In 2001, he and his employer entered a partial compromise and release agreement to settle all issues stemming from the injury except for future medical care for his lumbar and thoracic spine. More recent disputes involved the extent of Appellant's medical care. A recurring issue between the parties pertained to venue for the proceedings. In 2008, Appellee Voorhees Concrete Cutting asked the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission to review and stay a non-final order that denied its change of venue from Fairbanks. The Commission first issued a partial stay, which permitted the case to go forward in any venue other than Fairbanks. It later reviewed the merits of the Workers' Compensation Board's decision to deny the change of venue and reversed it. On appeal, Mr. Monzulla contended that the Commission did not have subject matter jurisdiction over "motions for extraordinary review." He claimed that legislature only granted the Commission jurisdiction to hear appeals of final Board orders. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that jurisdiction to hear appeals is "necessarily incident to the Commission's express power" to hear appeals from final Board decisions. The Court affirmed the Commission's decision. View "Monzulla v. Voorhees Concrete Cutting" on Justia Law

Appellee Advanced Physical Therapy, Inc. (APT) terminated the employment of Appellant Patricia Hoendermis. She had previously served as the clinicâs practice administrator. APTâs reason for terminating her was that Appellant had difficulty communicating with her co-workers and supervisors. Accordingly, Appellant disagreed with APTâs decision, and sued APT for wrongful termination and for failing to provide her overtime compensation. Appellant maintained that she was not an administrative or executive employee, and was therefore entitled to overtime pay. Furthermore, she alleged APT violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in her employment contract. The Superior Court granted APT summary judgment, and Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to APT because it found genuine issues of material fact raised by Appellant on both her overtime compensation and wrongful termination claims. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.