State of Alaska v. Public Safety Employees Association

[ARBITRATION LAW]

In State of Alaska v. Public Safety Employees Association, the supreme court held that an arbitration award of reinstatement with back pay for an employee who has engaged in sexual misconduct does not violate an explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy in Alaska.[1] In April 2009, an Alaska state trooper had consensual sex with a domestic violence victim the morning after he had been dispatched to the victim’s house to address a disturbance with her husband.[2] The trooper was discharged from his position, and the Public Safety Employees Association subsequently filed a grievance with the State of Alaska.[3] The matter went to arbitration, and arbitrator ultimately decided to reinstate the trooper with back pay.[4] The superior court upheld the arbitrator’s order of back pay, and reasoned that it would have enforced the trooper’s reinstatement, but could not because his license had been revoked.[5] On appeal, the State argued that the arbitration award should be vacated in full as contrary to public policy.[6] The supreme court affirmed the superior court’s decision, reasoning that no public policy required termination rather than suspension or other remedies for non-criminal sexual misconduct.[7] The court also reasoned that the public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitration awards must be considered in terms of the arbitrator’s decision, not the conduct of the employee.[8] Affirming the superior court’s decision, the supreme court held that an arbitration award of reinstatement with back pay for an employee who has engaged in sexual misconduct does not violate an explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy in Alaska.[9]

[1] 323 P.3d 670, 676 (Alaska 2014).

[2] Id. at 672.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 675.

[7] Id. at 679-683.

[8] Id. at 677.

[9] Id. at 676.

State of Alaska v. Public Safety Employees Association

[ARBITRATION LAW]

In State of Alaska v. Public Safety Employees Association, the supreme court held that an arbitration award of reinstatement with back pay for an employee who has engaged in sexual misconduct does not violate an explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy in Alaska.[1] In April 2009, an Alaska state trooper had consensual sex with a domestic violence victim the morning after he had been dispatched to the victim’s house to address a disturbance with her husband.[2] The trooper was discharged from his position, and the Public Safety Employees Association subsequently filed a grievance with the State of Alaska.[3] The matter went to arbitration, and arbitrator ultimately decided to reinstate the trooper with back pay.[4] The superior court upheld the arbitrator’s order of back pay, and reasoned that it would have enforced the trooper’s reinstatement, but could not because his license had been revoked.[5] On appeal, the State argued that the arbitration award should be vacated in full as contrary to public policy.[6] The supreme court affirmed the superior court’s decision, reasoning that no public policy required termination rather than suspension or other remedies for non-criminal sexual misconduct.[7] The court also reasoned that the public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitration awards must be considered in terms of the arbitrator’s decision, not the conduct of the employee.[8] Affirming the superior court’s decision, the supreme court held that an arbitration award of reinstatement with back pay for an employee who has engaged in sexual misconduct does not violate an explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy in Alaska.[9]

[1] 323 P.3d 670, 676 (Alaska 2014).

[2] Id. at 672.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 675.

[7] Id. at 679-683.

[8] Id. at 677.

[9] Id. at 676.