Alaska Employment Law

Jump to Comments

Scattered Alaska statutes authorize awards of  actual attorneys fees to prevailing plaintiffs in employment cases.  Some are familiar (such as the provision in the Wage and Hour Act for reasonable attorney fees).  Some are less familiar, such as the provisions for these categories of claims:

1) Extension of fraudulent employment offers

Alaska law bars an employer from fraudulently inducing an employee to change a place of employment by misrepresenting “the kind and character of the work to be done, or the amount and character of the compensation to be paid for the work, or the sanitary or other conditions of employment.”   AS 23.10.015.  The law authorizes the court to award the successful employee, in addition to actual damages, “the reasonable attorney fees which the court shall fix, to be taxed as costs.” 

The act applies to intra- as well as inter-state changes of employment. 

2) Commission of a serious criminal offense

The court may award “full reasonable attorney fees”  when the employer has engaged in a “serious criminal offense. ”  AS 09.60.070.  “Serious criminal offense” includes sexual assault and assault in any degree.  AS 09.60.070(c)(4) and (6).
               

This category of employment claims would include any Title 18 claims (and similar tort claims) that involve sex or race-related bodily contacts, or threats to engage in such contact.  Thus, despite the holding in Moody-Herrera v. State, DNR, 967 P.2d 79 (Alaska 1998)(the Human Rights Act does not provide an exception to Rule 82), some successful Title 18 claimants are entitled to full fees, not just Rule 82 fees.  If these plaintiffs lose, they presumably would be subject to an adverse Rule 82 fee award.

Note that the statute protects certain whistleblowers as well, because it authorizes fees for claims arising from “an attempt on the part of the person to prevent the commission of a serious criminal offense or to apprehend an offender who has committed a serious criminal offense, or aiding or attempting to aid a police officer to do so, or aiding a victim of a serious criminal offense.”  AS 09.60.070(a)(1).

3) Violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act

The state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act provides:

In an action brought by a private person under AS 45.50.471 - 45.50.561, a prevailing plaintiff shall be awarded costs as provided by court rule and full reasonable attorney fees at the prevailing reasonable rate.

AS 45.50.537(a).

On its face, the Act applies to all unfair or deceptive acts “in the conduct of trade or commerce.”  AS 45.50.471(a).   The Supreme Court has frequently used “trade”  to refer to a skilled occupation (e.g., electrician, crane operator, safety inspector, and taper), and occasionally to refer to any occupation, silled or unskilled.  So, the application of the Act to an employment dispute would comply with the face of the Act.  Note, however, that the legislative history does not affirmatively endorse application of the UTPA to an employment relationship.  See also Western Star Trucks, Inc. v. Big Iron Equipment Service, Inc., 101 P.3d 1047 (Alaska 2004)(the UTPA is not limited to consumer transactions, but applies as well to transactions between businesses). 

The Act proceeds to identify instances of such deceptive acts in § 471(b), but the list is expressly non-exhaustive.   One of the identified examples of deceptive acts is

representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not confer or involve, or which are prohibited by law.

AS 45.50.471(b)(14).  

That example would seem to cover a broad scope of litigation involving employment-related issues, such as overbroad covenants not to compete; mischaracterizations of employment status (e.g., independent contractor v. employee); unconscionable agreements to arbitrate; and illegal limitations on the right to discuss wages.

4) Failure to pay a mechanic or materialman

AS 34.35.074(a) provides for the recovery of “reasonable attorney fees” by an unpaid mechanic or materialman who successfully forecloses on a lien.  Included is someone who performs labor on real estate “for the construction, alteration, or repair of a building or improvement.”  AS 34.35.050(1).  Oddly, there are no fee provisions for foreclosures of wage liens, miner’s liens, etc.