Alaska Employment Law

When several employees alleged a hostile work environment created by several supervisors,  the employer hired its regular outside labor counsel to conduct the investigation.  He tape-recorded some (perhaps not all) of the interviews.  He rendered an opinion to the employer, apparently that no HWE existed.  When the employees filed a lawsuit against both the employer and several individual supervisors, the supervisors retained the investigator as their counsel, and the employer retained other counsel.  The plaintiff employees now have moved to disqualify the investigator-attorney as defense counsel, relying on RPC 3.7.  The defense argues that the investigator is not a “necessary witness,” that no facts are disputed, and that the motion is premature. 

The case is Hutton and Whorton v. City of Fairbanks, Daniel Hoffman, and Brad Johnson,  4:08-CV-00029-RRB (D.Alaska). 

Here’s the briefing:

Hutton Mtn. to Disqualify

Ind. Defs’ Opp. re Disqualification

City Opp’n re Disqualification

Hutton Reply re Disqualification

Linda Johnson of Clapp Peterson in Anchorage represents the employees.  Joe Evans of Bremerton, Washington, represents the individual supervisor-defendants.  Howard Trickey and Matthew Singer of Jermain Dunnagan represent the City employer.  The matter is assigned to District Judge Ralph Beistline.

Update: Joan Rohlf of Guess & Rudd presented a paper on Conducting Workplace Investigations at the October 2006 Employment Law Section meeting.