Alaska Employment Law

U. S. District Judge Ralph Beistline has held that Teck Cominco’s employment preference for NANA shareholders at its Red Dog mine outside Kotzebue doesn’t violate either Title VII or Alaska’s Title 18. 

In his Order of July 21, 2008, Beistline first held that the employee hadn’t shown he was qualified for the position., and that, even if he had, the employee hadn’t rebutted the employer’s explanation for the hiring decision. 

Then, in an alternate ruling, Beistline held:

Further, even if Teck Cominco’s explanations were pretextual, application of the shareholder hiring preference is not prohibited by law because it is based on the permissible distinction of shareholder status rather than race. Not all Natives are NANA shareholders and not all NANA shareholders are Alaska Natives. A non-Native can become a NANA shareholder through marriage, adoption, or inheritance, and counsel for NANA avers that at least 65 of NANA’s 11,655 current shareholders fall into this category. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim that the shareholder hiring preference is a “surrogate” or “proxy” for race is incorrect.

Because Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case, and because the shareholder hiring preference is based on a permissible distinction, the Court need not consider whether 43 U.S.C. § 1626(g) exempts Teck Cominco from the state and federal anti-discrimination laws upon which this suit is based.

Conitz v. Teck Cominco, 4:06-cv-0015-RRB (D.Alaska Order of July 21, 2008)

Ken Covell of Fairbanks represented the plaintiff.  Sean Halloran of Anchorage’s Hartig Rhodes represented Teck Cominco.  Tom Daniel of the Anchorage office of Perkins Coie represented Intervenor-defendant NANA.