Alaska Employment Law

U. S. District Judge James Singleton has remanded this state law claim that alleges a retaliatory firing arising from a safety complaint.  The employer had removed to federal court.

In his Order, Singleton held:

The Court has carefully considered the record in this case. It is convinced that Fett’s state law claim of retaliatory firing may be resolved without reference to the CBA. Fett must prove: 1) that he complained about safety conditions; 2) that he was fired and 3) that his complaints were a cause of his firing. At most the CBA might help to explain ASRC’s contention that it fired Fett for reasons other then concern about his safety complaints. Under controlling law that would not satisfy complete preemption. See e.g., Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988); Cramer v. Consol. Freightways Inc., 255 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc); Eldridge v. Felec Servs., 920 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir. 1990); Norcon, Inc. v. Kotowski, 971 P.2d 158, 167 (Alaska 1999). Fett is entitled to have his state law claims tried in state court.

Fett v. ASRC Energy Services, Inc., 3:07-cv-00239 JKS (D.Alaska Order of Aug. 25, 2008)

Lee Holen represents the employee.  Bill Mede of Turner & Mede represents the employer.