Alaska Employment Law

Evergreen Aviation fired Taheri after it allegedly found him sleeping on the job.  Taheri claimed Evergreen retaliated against him for his complaints to the Alaska Human Rights Commission about discrimination based on national origin, race, religion, and age.  Judge Ralph Beistline granted summary judgment against Taheri, holding that while Taheri had presented a prima facie case of retaliation, he had failed to raise a genuine factual dispute about Evergreen’s non-discriminatory reason.  Taheri v. Evergreen Aviation Ground Logistics Enterprises, Inc., Case No. A04-0106 CV RRB (Jan. 6, 2006)(Docket # 45). 

On appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed (2-1) in an unpublished opinion, holding that Judge Beistline improperly made a credibility determination that favored management’s account over Taheri’s.  According to the majority (Noonan and Paez), Taheri had produced adequate evidence to show that Evergreen’s decisionmaker (Kegley) knew of other employees who had engaged in the same asserted misconduct (sleeping on the job) and had failed to discipline them.  

Taheri’s evidence that sleeping on the job between shifts was rampant, practiced by employees and supervisors alike, and visible almost daily, calls into question Kegley’s testimony that he was unaware that this practice was taking place.  In addition, Taheri presented evidence that Kegley was involved in addressing Taheri’s discrimination complaint and was aware of Miller’s retaliatory animus and threats, yet based his termination decision in part on Miller’s June 5, 2000 disciplinary action.  A reasonable jury could infer retaliatory motives from Kegley’s ratification of Miller’s actions. . . . Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2001)(”Even if a manager was not the ultimate decisionmaker, that manager’s retaliatory motive may be imputed to the company if the manager was involved in the [adverse employment] decision.”).

Taheri v. Evergreen Aviation Ground Logistics Enterprises, Inc., 2007 WL 2491462 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2007)(unpub. opinion).

The dissent (Wallace) argued that Kegley’s specific testimony disavowing knowledge of sleeping employees was not adequately disputed by Taheri’s evidence of “general observations that many people slept on the job.”

Ted Stepovich of Anchorage represents Taheri.  The Atlanta, George law firm of Ford & Harrison represents Evergreen.

This appeal was argued August 8th in Anchorage.

The argument concerning imputation of bias is discussed in Gregory Fisher’s recent AEL post entitled “9th Cir. Rejects ‘Cat’s Paw’ Theory in Employment Discrimination.”