EMPLOYMENT LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Rosa Gibson
In Amos v. Tidwell, 552 P.3d 1060 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that (1) the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission (the “Commission”) exceeded its authority in creating a “buddy” exemption to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), and (2) the productive/ consumptive distinction did not apply to an employment relationship where the employer was not a householder. (Id. at 1071, 1074). Plambeck hired Tidwell to build a shop on Plambeck’s property. (Id. at 1064). Tidwell offered work on the project to his friend Amos and agreed to pay him. (Id.). While working on the shop, Amos fell from its roof and was injured (Id.). He then filed a workers’ compensation claim. (Id. at 1064–65). The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board dismissed the claim against Tidwell, and the Commission affirmed. (Id. at 1067). On appeal, Amos argued that the Commission exceeded its powers when it created an implicit exemption to the Act’s coverage for employment contracts between friends (Id. at 1070). The supreme court agreed with Amos, citing precedent that only the legislature can create exempt categories of employees. (Id.). Amos also argued that, in determining that Tidwell was not an employer under the Act, the Commission misapplied the productive/consumptive distinction (Id. at 1071–72). The court agreed, explaining that employers for consumptive activities—activities providing only personal benefit to the employer—are exempt under the Act, but this exemption only applies to householders employing others to work on their personal residence. (Id. at 1072). Since Tidwell was hired by a householder but was not one himself, the court reasoned that categorizing his work as consumptive would inappropriately exempt from the Act any contractor hired by a householder. (Id. at 1073–74). Reversing the Commission’s decision, the supreme court held that (1) the Commission exceeded its authority in creating a “buddy” exemption to the Act, and (2) the productive/consumptive distinction did not apply to an employment relationship where the employer was not a householder. (Id. at 1071, 1074).
