Werba v. Ass’n of Village Council Presidents

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Emma Giusto

In Werba v. Ass’n of Village Council Presidents, 480 P.3d 1200 (Alaska, 2021), the supreme court held that (1) trial courts have the discretion to allow parties to cure deficiencies in summary judgment motions, and (2) testimony that a former employee may have been deceived about the temporary nature of a new position is not enough to establish parenthood-based discrimination. (Id. at 1206, 1210). The Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) hired a consulting firm which approached Werba regarding a work-from-home position shortly after she returned from maternity leave. (Id. at 1202–03). Werba gave up her position as Vice President of Finance to work-from-home as a Special Projects Accountant, but after eight months she was informed her position was terminated. (Id. at 1203). Werba sued AVCP, alleging parenthood discrimination as she was never informed the Special Projects Accountant position was temporary. (Id.). AVCP moved for summary judgment, but Webra argued it failed to meet its burden as the evidence included in the motion was unauthenticated. (Id.). AVCP filed a reply, including an affidavit from its general counsel authenticating the documents. (Id.). The supreme court affirmed the superior court’s decision, reasoning that the trial court had discretion to allow parties to attempt to cure deficiencies by supplementing pending motions as long as the other party has an opportunity to respond. (Id. at 1206). The court further reasoned that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to AVCP, as testimony by AVCP’s former human resource director that she believed Werba had been deceived about the temporary nature of the new position was insufficient to establish parenthood-based discrimination. (Id. at 1210). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that (1) trial courts have the discretion to allow parties to cure deficiencies in summary judgment motions as long the other party has the chance to respond, and (2) testimony that a former employee may have been deceived about the temporary nature of a new position is insufficient to establish parenthood-based discrimination. (Id at 1206, 1210).

 

Werba v. Ass’n of Village Council Presidents

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Emma Giusto

In Werba v. Ass’n of Village Council Presidents, 480 P.3d 1200 (Alaska, 2021), the supreme court held that (1) trial courts have the discretion to allow parties to cure deficiencies in summary judgment motions, and (2) testimony that a former employee may have been deceived about the temporary nature of a new position is not enough to establish parenthood-based discrimination. (Id. at 1206, 1210). The Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) hired a consulting firm which approached Werba regarding a work-from-home position shortly after she returned from maternity leave. (Id. at 1202–03). Werba gave up her position as Vice President of Finance to work-from-home as a Special Projects Accountant, but after eight months she was informed her position was terminated. (Id. at 1203). Werba sued AVCP, alleging parenthood discrimination as she was never informed the Special Projects Accountant position was temporary. (Id.). AVCP moved for summary judgment, but Webra argued it failed to meet its burden as the evidence included in the motion was unauthenticated. (Id.). AVCP filed a reply, including an affidavit from its general counsel authenticating the documents. (Id.). The supreme court affirmed the superior court’s decision, reasoning that the trial court had discretion to allow parties to attempt to cure deficiencies by supplementing pending motions as long as the other party has an opportunity to respond. (Id. at 1206). The court further reasoned that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to AVCP, as testimony by AVCP’s former human resource director that she believed Werba had been deceived about the temporary nature of the new position was insufficient to establish parenthood-based discrimination. (Id. at 1210). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that (1) trial courts have the discretion to allow parties to cure deficiencies in summary judgment motions as long the other party has the chance to respond, and (2) testimony that a former employee may have been deceived about the temporary nature of a new position is insufficient to establish parenthood-based discrimination. (Id at 1206, 1210).