Alaska Employment Law

In the lawsuit against Teck Cominco that unsuccessfully challenged the employment preference for NANA shareholders, U. S. District Judge Ralph Beistline has awarded only nominal attorney fees ($2,500) to Teck Cominco, and denied any fees to intervenor NANA.  The suit was brought under both state law (Human Rights Act and contract law), as well as federal law. 

As to Teck Cominco’s fee motion, Beistline ruled:

While this litigation appears to have been unnecessarily costly and hostile, the legal issues raised were unique and significant and only became clear after substantial discovery and motion practice. Given this, plus the economic disparity between the parties, the Court concludes that only nominal fees should be assessed [against plaintiff]. 

On NANA’s fee motion, Beistline ruled:

Nana’s appearance, although helpful, was not necessary to resolve the legal issue raised.  Moreover, Nana benefitted from the resolution of this issue. For these reasons, and given the economic disparity between the parties, Nana’s Motion for Attorney Fees is hereby DENIED.

The employee has appealed the merits, and Teck Cominco has appealed the fees rulings. 

Conitz v. Teck Cominco, 4:06-cv-0015-RRB (D.Alaska Oct. 16, 2008, Order re Fees and Costs).

Ken Covell of Fairbanks represents Conitz.  Sean Halloran of Hartig Rhodes  and Tom Daniel of Perkins Coie, both of Anchorage, represent Teck Cominco and NANA, respectively.