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 Continue Reading »
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 Continue Reading »
EMPLOYMENT LAW Daniel Clark In Kennedy v. Anchorage Police & Fire Retirement System, 485 P.3d 1030 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that the Anchorage Municipal Codes require that court ordered damages or settlements be considered retroactive compensation in calculating retirement benefits; however, such retroactive compensation does not entitle retirees to accrue credited service for Continue Reading »
EMPLOYMENT LAW Adam Beyer In Alaska State Commission for Human Rights v. United Physical Therapy, 484 P.3d 599 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board acted reasonably when it interpreted the merits of a provider’s claim to require a review of the underlying medical care. (Id. at 606–07). The case Continue Reading »
EMPLOYMENT LAW Hannah Rogers In Buntin v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., 487 P.3d 595 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that an employer is required to prove an exemption to the overtime provisions of the Alaska Wage and Hour Act (AWHA) by preponderance of the evidence and that the court must give AWHA exemptions a fair Continue Reading »
EMPLOYMENT LAW Daniel Clark In Wilson v. State, 478 P.3d 1217 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that neither public employees nor their counsel must be given notice of the privilege against self-incrimination in advance of an interview wherein employees’ answers will be compelled under threat of the termination. (Id. at 1225–26). In March of Continue Reading »
EMPLOYMENT LAW Clara Nieman In Metcalfe v. State, 484 P.3d 93 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that repeal of the statutory reinstatement right for former members of the public employee retirement benefits system diminished those members’ accrued benefits, in violation of the Alaska Constitution. (Id. at 95). Metcalfe was a former state employee who Continue Reading »
EMPLOYMENT LAW Natalie Howard In Lovely v. Baker Hughes, Inc., the supreme court held that for purposes of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA), a project owner must actually contract with a person to perform specific work as well as enjoy the beneficial use of that work. Several construction workers received workers’ compensation from their Continue Reading »
EMPLOYMENT LAW Christopher Dodd James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc. In James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc., 468 P.3d 711 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that there was insufficient evidence to determine corporate relationships between three companies, and it was therefore inappropriate to grant summary judgement based on immunity under the Alaska Workers’ Continue Reading »
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW EMPLOYMENT LAW Kate Goldberg Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights In Baker v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, 476 P.3d 1120 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held a commission’s dismissal of a discrimination complaint was not so arbitrary and capricious as to offend due process (id. at 1127) and Continue Reading »
