In Reynolds-Rogers v. Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that an employee is precluded from bringing a wrongful termination claim against her employer after a union settles her grievances with that employer. The Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) employed Rogers for seven years, during which time Rogers filed five grievances against DHHS for her two Letters of Warning, two suspensions and ultimate termination with her union. The union settled all of these grievances with DHHS; in exchange for withdrawing the grievances, DHHS paid Rogers $3800 and removed a negative performance evaluation. Rogers sued DHHS for wrongful termination based on a breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, arguing on appeal that the union’s settlement was flawed. The supreme court affirmed the superior court’s decision, reasoning that her claim was precluded from re-litigation by the union’s settlement agreement with DHHS. Rogers could not argue that the settlement agreement was inherently flawed because that issue was not presented below. The supreme court reasoned that Rogers had accepted the union and DHHS settlement agreement withdrawing her grievances. There was no reason to set aside this agreement so the supreme court found Rogers’ contractual claim barred. Because Rogers’ contractual claims had been settled by the agreement and a wrongful termination claim must have a basis in either tort or contract law, the supreme court held that Rogers could not sue, and that that an employee is precluded from bringing a wrongful termination claim against her employer after a union settles her grievances with that employer.
[1] 436 P.3d 469 (Alaska 2019).
