Alaska Employment Law

A law enforcement officer alleged that his department transferred him in retaliation for public positions he took during an election, and sued under 42 USC § 1983.  The panel reversed several trial court rulings adverse to the employee. 

Undesired duties as adverse employment action:  The panel held that the transfer was an adverse employment action, though it apparently resulted in no loss of pay. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [plaintiff/employee] Quantz, we conclude that Kimball was one of the main decision makers who transferred Quantz, and that the transfer was an adverse employment action because Kimball knew that Quantz strongly disliked working in the SOR Unit. A transfer of job duties alone can constitute an adverse employment action as long as it is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity. Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000); Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir. 1987).

11-month v. 12-month proximity:  The panel also reversed the District Court’s holding that the employee’s protected activity was too remote from the AEA to suggest retaliation.

Kimball offered a number of seemingly legitimate reasons for transferring Quantz soon after the election, but Quantz proferred evidence that the decision to transfer him was made just two months after the election, that Kimball was an ardent supporter of Edwards during the election, and that Kimball knew that Quantz did not want to work in the SOR Unit.  We have held that a gap of as much as 11 months between protected speech and an adverse employment action can support an inference of retaliation.  See Coszalter, 320 F.3d at 977-78.

(Emph. added.)

Just eight days ago, a different panel (B. Fletcher, Rymer, and Beistline) held that a “nearly twelve-month gap” would not create an inference of retaliation.  Lawson v. Reynolds Industries Inc., 2008 WL 111116 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2008).  The Reynolds opinion cites to Manatt v. Bank of America, 339 F.3d 792, 802 (9th Cir. 2003).

The Quantz panel included Reinhardt, Paez, and a visiting District Court judge.  Quantz v. Edwards, 2008 WL 176373 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2008)(unpub.)