Alaska Employment Law

The plaintiff in Johnson v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. claims that her supervisor replaced her with [CORRECTION] a woman toward whom he had romantic feelings.  Her various statutory claims (age, FMLA, etc.) have been dismissed or withdrawn (Docket # 81, 02/09/07), leaving only a common law count for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The matter is set for a 10-day jury trial starting October 9, 2007. 

Judge Ralph Beistline has now resolved Fred Meyers’ in limine motion, denying most of it.  In the course of his order, Beistline expanded on his earlier ruling on the implied covenant claim.  (02/09/07, Docket #81) His most recent order states that plaintiff Johnson may prevail if she proves that “[supervisor] San Miguel disciplined and/or terminated [her] in order to hire . . . an employee toward whom he apparently had a romantic interest.”  Beistline further held that Fred Meyers’ failure to use its progressive discipline policy would “suggest improper underlying motives.”   

In the course of making that in limine holding, Judge Beistline rejected Fred Meyers’ contention that the “public policy” wing of the implied covenant claim must rest upon a “clear expression of public policy,” and instead framed the “public policy” standard this way: 

The jury will be permitted to decide whether Defendants’ actions comport with ‘what is just or right’ or ’strike at the heart of a citizen’s social rights, duties, and responsibilities.’ 

Johnson v. Fred Meyers Stores, Inc., 1:04-cv-0008 (D.Alaska Oct. 1, 2007)(Docket # 118)(quoting Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 768 P.2d 1123 (Alaska 1989)).

Mark Choate of Juneau represents plaintiff Johnson.  Peter Gruenstein of Gruenstein & Hickey in Anchorage represents Fred Meyers.

10/04/07 UPDATE: Fred Meyers has moved for reconsideration on two points (including the definition of Alaska public policy), and Judge Beistline has ordered plaintiff Johnson to respond.