Alaska Employment Law

The feds prosecuted Patricia Paul for stealing funds that she claimed were due her for unpaid overtime compensation.  She asserted that she was improperly classified as exempt.  When she called an expert on the exemption issue, the trial judge excluded the evidence.  The 9th Circuit, in an unpublished opinon, held:

The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit Paul’s proferred expert testimony on the difference between exempt and non-exempt employees because it constitutes an inadmissible expert legal opinion, see United States v. Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275, 1287 (9th Cir. 1993), and would not assist the trier of fact because it concerns an issue that is not relevant to the criminal charge, see Fed.R.Evid. 702.

U.S. v. Paul, 2007 WL 2384234 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2007).  Weitzenhoff, in turn, holds:

Although the testimony of the witnesses regarding technical terms in the [waste] permit might have been permissible had the judge proceeded properly to instruct the jury, see Fed.R.Evid. 702 (expert testimony admissible if it will assist the trier of fact), 704 (opinion on ultimate issue to be decided by factfinder not necessarily objectionable), in this case it compounded the error of consigning the interpretation of the law to the jury.  The court’s admission of expert testimony on contested issues of law in lieu of instructing the jury was manifestly erroneous.

35 F.3d at 1287.

(Added 08/27/07): In Alaska, the Supreme Court has held that a trial court didn’t abuse its discretion when it excluded certain testimony from Randy Carr, then the chief of Labor Standards for the state, in an AWHA overtime case:

[Former employee] Barios failed to show that Carr’s testimony would have been of ‘appreciable help’ in deciding this case.  Carr had no firsthand knowledge of the factual circumstances at issue in this case.  In addition, he did not offer legal expertise that would be relevant to the court in determination of the case.  The court inquired at length as to whether Carr’s administrative expertise provided some insight into longstanding interpretations of Alaska law that would be of assistance to the court, but Barios’s attorneys failed to point to any such interpretations.  As a result, Carr would have only given his opinion as to how he would have decided the case under the applicable legal principles.  Since Barios failed to identify any points of law or fact on which Carr would have assisted the court, it was not error for the court to exclude his testimony.

Barios v. Brooks Range Supply, Inc., 26 P.3d 1082, 1088 (Alaska 2001).  In Alaska, the court uses the ‘abuse of discretion’ standard in reviewing rulings on the admissibility of expert testimony.  Id. at 1085.