Alaska Employment Law

Last Wednesday the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed Judge Patricia Collins’ summary judgment against a Juneau citizen who claimed that a Juneau Police officer had tortiously harassed him.  In its unpublished opinion, the court adopted Judge Collins’ “thorough discussion of the IIED issue.”  Olivit v. Comolli, No. 1284 (Alaska Aug. 15, 2007).

Collins held that plaintiff Olivit had failed to satisfy the “outrageousness” threshold for an IIED claim.   She wrote:

Examples of egregious conduct sufficient to satisfy the outrageousness threshold are threatening someone’s life, sustained, extensive and concerted efforts to drive someone from their job, or put someone out of business.  Alaska courts have held that it is not outrageous to engage in conduct that alienates neighbors, imparts acrimonious messages to immediate neighbors, and seriously diminishes the value of nearby property.  Further, in Finch v. Greatland Foods, Inc., the Alaska Supreme Court held that a targeted campaign of workplace harassment and discrimination did not amount to outrageous conduct even though the same evidence was sufficient to overcome summary jdugment on a constructive discharge claim.  The court held that the allged harassment and discrimination was not sufficient for an IIED claim because it involved mere threats and ridicule. 

[Citations omitted.]  The Supreme Court also upheld the trial court’s fee award against Olivit of $21,824.25, based on a pre-disclosures Rule 68 offer of $1.00.

Eric Kueffner of Faulkner Banfield represented the City and Borough of Juneau.  Olivit was pro se.