Alaska Employment Law

Three of today’s unpublished opinions resolve employment law issues.

Attorney fee award against Title VII plaintiff:  The 9th Circuit has affirmed Judge Ralph Beistline’s refusal to grant a losing Title VII plaintiff’s Rule 60(a) motion to set aside a substantial fee award.  Raad v. Fairbanks North Star Bor. Sch. Dist., 2008 WL _______ (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2008)(unpub.)

Tolling of private Title IX claim:  Pursuit of Title IX administrative remedies doesn’t toll the limitations period for private Title IX lawsuit.  Green v. Bastyr Univ., 2008 WL _______ (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2008)(unpub.)

Removal for CBA-covered employment claim:  The employer’s knowledge that the claim is CBA-covered is irrelevant.

Beverly’s removal notice was timely. Rose’s complaint did not disclose on its face that Rose’s suit was one for breach of a CBA. Beverly’s subjective knowledge to the contrary is irrelevant. See Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 695 (9th Cir. 2005). Beverly filed its removal notice within thirty days of the “receipt by the defendant . . . of a . . . paper from which” Beverly could “first ascertain[] that the case is one which is or has become removable . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

Rose v. Beverly Health & Rehab. Serv., Inc., 2008 WL _______ (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2008)(unpub.)