Alaska Employment Law

The jury trial in Johnson v. Fred Meyer, discussed recently, started Monday in federal court.  Judge Beistline has continued to address the plaintiff’s claim that the implied covenant of good faith/fair dealing is violated when the male supervisor’s romantic preference for another female employee causes an adverse employment action. 

In his latest order, Beistline said:

If Plaintiff succeeds in establishing that she was fired so that her supervisor could hire a woman with whom he had a hoped for romantic interest, then Plaintiff may recover as a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because firing under these circumstances would be based on improper motives and bad faith as a matter of law. The Court believes that the Alaska Supreme Court would agree. This, therefore, is the law of the case. The so-called “sweetie rule” has never been recognized in Alaska or the Ninth Circuit and is not before this Court.

Defendant’s unduly narrow construction of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing reduces the covenant to a mere tag along claim which could only exist alongside separate claims based on constitutional or statutory violations. There is no authority for this narrow rendering. The covenant of good faith and fair dealing is an independent cause of action and is often the only cause of action available to at-will employees. Nevertheless, it “operates as a check on employers’ traditional freedom to terminate at-will employment for any reason.” ERA Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999).

Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence that Plaintiff was terminated so that her supervisor could replace her with a “pretty young single woman” is therefore DENIED.

Johnson v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., Case 1:04-cv-0008-RRB (D.Alaska Aug. 8, 2008, Order on Renewed Motions in Limine)