EMPLOYMENT LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Cindy Cheng
In Seal v. Welty, 528 P.3d 452 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court held that the court, not a jury, decides the issue of whether a worker was an independent contractor or an employee as a preliminary matter before a jury trial. (Id. at 460). Nicholson Tinker died in a work-related accident while working for Mark Welty, a contractor with no workers’ compensation coverage . (Id. at 454). Tinker’s mother, Leona Seal, was appointed as the personal representative of his estate (the Estate). (Id.). The Estate alleged Tinker was an employee, but Welty contended Tinker was an independent contractor, meaning the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act therefore did not apply. (Id. at 455). The superior court granted summary judgment to Welty. (Id. at 454). On appeal, Welty continued to argue that the question of an injured person’s status as an employee or independent contractor was an issue for the jury. (Id. at 458). The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that employee status should be determined by the court in advance of a jury trial. (Id. at 460). Welty had asserted that the jury must try fact issues when a case has both legal and equitable claims. (Id. at 459–60). However, the court reasoned that because what Welty identified were not fact issues but legal considerations, the court should determine whether Welty owed Tinker a duty of care. Reversing the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that the court, not a jury, decides the issue of whether a worker was an independent contractor or an employee as a preliminary matter before a jury trial. (Id. at 460).
