Alaska Employment Law

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that a supervisor could not be held individually liable for retaliation based on sexual orientation, reversing a $155,000 verdict. California state law limits claims for employment discrimination to “employers,” but the same state law prohibits retaliation by “any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person.” The employee argued that the word “person” in the statute means all people who retaliate are individually liable. The court disagreed:

All of [the] reasons for not imposing individual liability for discrimination – supervisors can avoid harassment but cannot avoid personnel decisions, it is incongruous to exempt small employers but to hold individual non-employers liable, sound policy favors avoiding conflicts of interest and the chilling of effective management, corporate employment decisions are often collective, and it is bad policy to subject supervisors to the threat of a lawsuit every time they make a personnel decision – apply equally to retaliation. …

Indeed, some may apply even more forcefully to retaliation claims. If an employee gains a reputation as a complainer, supervisors might be particularly afraid to impose discipline on that employee or make other lawful personnel decisions out of fear the employee might claim the action was retaliation for the complaining. The legislature has given the same exemption to small employers against claims of retaliation that it gave small employers against claims of discrimination. … No reason appears why it would want to make non-employer individuals personally liable for retaliation but not for discrimination. …

Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership, No. S151022. March 3, 2008.

AS 18.80.220 is aimed at employers, both with regard to discrimination and retaliation, and AS 18.80.300(4) defines the employer as a “person … who has one or more employees in the state…” AS 18.80.260 makes it unlawful for a person to “aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of an act forbidden under this chapter or to attempt …” I have heard of trial courts ruling out suits against individual supervisors, although suits against supervisors pursuant to 18.80.260 have been allowed.

In Ellison v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Union Local 375, et al., 118 P.3d 1070, 1077-78 (Alaska 2005), the plaintiff brought AS 18.80.260 claims against the union and her individual shop stewards. The Court found insufficient evidence to support aiding and abetting claims against the defendants and declined to decide whether AS 18.80.260 imposes individual liability on co-workers.