Main Menu

Employment Law

  • Beach v. United States
    EMPLOYMENT LAWUnited States District Court, District of Alaska (2022)Robert BulkaIn Beach v. United States, 602 F. Supp. 3d 1192 (D. Alaska 2022), the district court held that theUnited States met the statutory definition of a “project owner” and thus was immune fromnegligence claims brought by a worker electrocuted while working in a housing unit on ...
  • Workers’ Compensation Benefits Guarantee Fund v. Adams
    EMPLOYMENT LAWSupreme Court of Alaska (2022)Sarah BrooksIn Workers’ Compensation Benefits Guarantee Fund v. Adams, 518 P.3d 280 (Alaska 2022), thesupreme court upheld the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board’s (Board) determination that acarpenter’s intoxication while on the job was not a proximate cause of his fall from a ladder. (Id.at 281, 287). While repairing a roof, a ...
  • Bakalar v. Dunleavy
    EMPLOYMENT LAWUnited States District Court, District of Alaska (2022)Elza BouhassiraIn Bakalar v. Dunleavy, 580 F.Supp.3d 66 (D. Alaska 2022), the district court held that an assistantattorney general’s free speech and associational rights were violated when she was terminated bythe state government. (Id. at 691). The assistant attorney general (AAG) held her position for morethan twelve ...
  • Patterson v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
    EMPLOYMENT LAWSupreme Court of Alaska (2022)Sam MacDuffieIn Patterson v. Matanuska–Susitna Borough School District, 523 P.3d 945 (Alaska 2022), thesupreme court found that the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) and the AlaskaWorkers’ Compensation Appeals Commission (Commission) committed harmless error by (1)failing to recognize the link between bodily fluids and mental distress, and (2) failing to considerthe ...
  • Rusch v. Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium
    EMPLOYMENT LAW Supreme Court of Alaska (2022) Rachel Reiss In Rusch v. Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, S-18038, 2022 WL 4588776 (Alaska Sept. 30, 2022), the supreme court held that the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) authorizes the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission (the Commission) to award successful workers’ compensation claimants enhanced attorneys’ fees. (Id. at *1). ...
  • Burke v. Criterion General, Inc.
    LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Adam Beyer In Burke v. Criterion General, Inc., 499 P.3d 319 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that amendments to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act did not violate procedural or substantive due process in allowing project owners and contractors the use of the exclusive remedy defense. (Id. at 320). A worker’s estate had received ...
  • Sumpter v. Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
    LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW Peter Graham In Sumpter v. Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, 494 P.3d 505 (Alaska 2021), the Supreme Court held that workers’ compensation presumption analysis does not weigh the evidence presented during the first two stages of a workers’ compensation claim. (Id. at 514). Rather, the evidence a defendant introduces to rebut a ...
  • State, Department of Corrections v. Wozniak
    EMPLOYMENT LAW Clara Nieman In State, Department of Corrections v. Wozniak, 491 P.3d 1081 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that an agency did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees as both a lump sum based on the attorney’s past work and ongoing statutory minimum fees based on future workers’ compensation benefits. (Id. at 1088). ...
  • Murphy v. Fairbanks North Star Borough
    EMPLOYMENT LAW Sasha Kahn In Murphy v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 494 P.3d 556 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that, based on legislative history and intent, the two-year statute of limitations on disability claims under the Alaska workers’ compensation statute applies to impairment claims as well. (Id. at 566–69). A mechanic working for the Fairbanks North ...
  • Luong v. Western Surety Co.
    EMPLOYMENT LAW Melissa Gustafson In Luong v. Western Surety Co., 485 P.3d 46 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that under the Little Miller Act, “labor” is defined as the work that is necessary to and forwards the project secured by the payment bond, and “notice” is effective the date the notice is sent, not the date ...

Employment Law

  • Beach v. United States
    EMPLOYMENT LAWUnited States District Court, District of Alaska (2022)Robert BulkaIn Beach v. United States, 602 F. Supp. 3d 1192 (D. Alaska 2022), the district court held that theUnited States met the statutory definition of a “project owner” and thus was immune fromnegligence claims brought by a worker electrocuted while working in a housing unit on ...
  • Workers’ Compensation Benefits Guarantee Fund v. Adams
    EMPLOYMENT LAWSupreme Court of Alaska (2022)Sarah BrooksIn Workers’ Compensation Benefits Guarantee Fund v. Adams, 518 P.3d 280 (Alaska 2022), thesupreme court upheld the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board’s (Board) determination that acarpenter’s intoxication while on the job was not a proximate cause of his fall from a ladder. (Id.at 281, 287). While repairing a roof, a ...
  • Bakalar v. Dunleavy
    EMPLOYMENT LAWUnited States District Court, District of Alaska (2022)Elza BouhassiraIn Bakalar v. Dunleavy, 580 F.Supp.3d 66 (D. Alaska 2022), the district court held that an assistantattorney general’s free speech and associational rights were violated when she was terminated bythe state government. (Id. at 691). The assistant attorney general (AAG) held her position for morethan twelve ...
  • Patterson v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
    EMPLOYMENT LAWSupreme Court of Alaska (2022)Sam MacDuffieIn Patterson v. Matanuska–Susitna Borough School District, 523 P.3d 945 (Alaska 2022), thesupreme court found that the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) and the AlaskaWorkers’ Compensation Appeals Commission (Commission) committed harmless error by (1)failing to recognize the link between bodily fluids and mental distress, and (2) failing to considerthe ...
  • Rusch v. Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium
    EMPLOYMENT LAW Supreme Court of Alaska (2022) Rachel Reiss In Rusch v. Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, S-18038, 2022 WL 4588776 (Alaska Sept. 30, 2022), the supreme court held that the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) authorizes the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission (the Commission) to award successful workers’ compensation claimants enhanced attorneys’ fees. (Id. at *1). ...
  • Burke v. Criterion General, Inc.
    LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Adam Beyer In Burke v. Criterion General, Inc., 499 P.3d 319 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that amendments to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act did not violate procedural or substantive due process in allowing project owners and contractors the use of the exclusive remedy defense. (Id. at 320). A worker’s estate had received ...
  • Sumpter v. Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
    LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW Peter Graham In Sumpter v. Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, 494 P.3d 505 (Alaska 2021), the Supreme Court held that workers’ compensation presumption analysis does not weigh the evidence presented during the first two stages of a workers’ compensation claim. (Id. at 514). Rather, the evidence a defendant introduces to rebut a ...
  • State, Department of Corrections v. Wozniak
    EMPLOYMENT LAW Clara Nieman In State, Department of Corrections v. Wozniak, 491 P.3d 1081 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that an agency did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees as both a lump sum based on the attorney’s past work and ongoing statutory minimum fees based on future workers’ compensation benefits. (Id. at 1088). ...
  • Murphy v. Fairbanks North Star Borough
    EMPLOYMENT LAW Sasha Kahn In Murphy v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 494 P.3d 556 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that, based on legislative history and intent, the two-year statute of limitations on disability claims under the Alaska workers’ compensation statute applies to impairment claims as well. (Id. at 566–69). A mechanic working for the Fairbanks North ...
  • Luong v. Western Surety Co.
    EMPLOYMENT LAW Melissa Gustafson In Luong v. Western Surety Co., 485 P.3d 46 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that under the Little Miller Act, “labor” is defined as the work that is necessary to and forwards the project secured by the payment bond, and “notice” is effective the date the notice is sent, not the date ...