Main Menu

Employment Law

  • Department of Family and Community Services, Office of Children’s Services v. Lane
    EMPLOYMENT LAW Supreme Court of Alaska (2024) Rasa Kerelis In Department of Family and Community Services, Office of Children’s Services v. Lane 542 P.3d 1124 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court denied a post-trial motion for a new trial, vacated the superior court’s damages judgment to limit noneconomic damages calculations, and remanded for further proceedings. (Id.). Brett Lane worked ...
  • Amos v. Tidwell
    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 ...
  • Jesperson v. Tri-City Air
    EMPLOYMENT LAW Supreme Court of Alaska (2024) Holly Merrill In Jesperson v. Tri-City Air, 547 P.3d 1042 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that the Alaska Worker’s Compensation Board did not abuse its discretion, and that there was substantial evidence to support its decision to deny a pilot’s worker’s compensation for medical care rendered over 30 years after ...
  • Seal v. Welty
    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 ...
  • 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 ...

Employment Law

  • Department of Family and Community Services, Office of Children’s Services v. Lane
    EMPLOYMENT LAW Supreme Court of Alaska (2024) Rasa Kerelis In Department of Family and Community Services, Office of Children’s Services v. Lane 542 P.3d 1124 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court denied a post-trial motion for a new trial, vacated the superior court’s damages judgment to limit noneconomic damages calculations, and remanded for further proceedings. (Id.). Brett Lane worked ...
  • Amos v. Tidwell
    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 ...
  • Jesperson v. Tri-City Air
    EMPLOYMENT LAW Supreme Court of Alaska (2024) Holly Merrill In Jesperson v. Tri-City Air, 547 P.3d 1042 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that the Alaska Worker’s Compensation Board did not abuse its discretion, and that there was substantial evidence to support its decision to deny a pilot’s worker’s compensation for medical care rendered over 30 years after ...
  • Seal v. Welty
    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 ...
  • 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 ...