Alaska Employment Law

ERISA preemption: The Court (per J. Matthews, with Fabe and Bryner not participating) affirmed Judge John Suddock’s judgment for two non-participants who sued their employer and a Trust Fund for negligently representing that they were were, in fact, participants in the health trust fund.  Suddock, in a court trial, awarded the employees $56,000 for net medical costs and $30,000 for emotional distress.  The employer had made trust fund contributions for these non-bargaining unit employees, but had not entered into a special agreement to cover them.  The U. S. Labor Department had later “admonished” the Trust Fund for providing benefits to a covered employer’s non-union staff without a special agreement.

The Supreme Court held:

1) ERISA § 514 does not pre-empt a common law claim for negligent misrepresentation by non-participants.

2) Emotional distress damages were justified, even in the absence of physical injury, because

it is apparent that an undertaking to provide medical services, particularly one that provides coverage to a pregnant woman, qualifies as just the sort of emotionally laden promise which, if not fulfilled, properly may give rise to emotional distress damages.

The element of a pre-existing relationship was met with regard to the employer defendant.  The Court found it met as to the Trust, as well:

The Trust, as the trial court found, not only made negligent misrepresentations on its own, it also bore a heavy responsibility for the negligent misrepresentations made by [employer]  Janssen.  It would be anomalous to hold that the Trust - the party most responsible for the misrepresentations - is not responsible for emotional distress damages while holding the less responsible party - Janssen - liable.  If the claim against the Trust for emotional distress damages was found wanting because of failure to meet the pre-existing duty requirement, this holding would mean that Janssen would have to pay the full amount of the damages.  This result would be unjust to Janssen.

The Court, thus, affirmed the $15,000 ED award to each of the plaintiffs.  It also rejected the employees’ claim that the awards were inadequate.

3)  The allocation of 75 % fault to the Fund and 25 % fault to the employer was justified.  The Court seemed to approve Judge Suddock’s analogy of the employer to a “lay consumer” and the Trust to an insurance company.

Southern Alaska Carpenters Health and Security Trust Fund v. Jones, Op. No. 6237, 2008 WL _______ (Alaska Mar. 7, 2008).

Grant Callow represented the employees.  Mary Pate of Eide, Gingras & Pate represented the employer.   Brad Owens and Thomas Ballantine of Jermain, Dunnagan & Owens represented the Trust Fund. 

Police lieutenants/captains as ”supervisors”:  The Supreme Court (per C. J. Fabe) has affirmed Judge Rindner’s affirmation of the Anchorage Municipal Employee Relations Board’s findings that Police Department lieutenants and captains are “supervisors” and thus exempt from collective bargaining rights under the Municipal Code.  The Court did not address the Board’s further findings that the captains are confidential employees, and that the union had failed to show the required commonality of interests.

Anchorage Police Department Command Officers’ Ass’n v. Mun. of Anchorage, Op. No. 6236, 2008 WL _______ (Alaska Mar. 7, 2008.

Kevin Fitzgerald of Ingaldson, Maassen & Fitzgerald represented the Union.  Mark Ertischek represented the Municipality.