Alaska Employment Law

The Alaska Supreme Court yesterday heard oral argument on the constitutionality of state law conferring Workers Compensation immunity on a project owner who is a statutory employer. 

The issue came before the Court on certification of these issues from U. S. District Judge Timothy Burgess:

(1) Whether the 2004 amendments to sections AS 23.30.045(a) and .055 of the Alaska Workers Compensation Act violate the Equal Protection provisions of the Alaska Constitution; and

(2) Whether the 2004 amendments to sections AS 23.30.045(a) and .055 of the Alaska Workers Compensation Act violate the Due Process provisions of the Alaska Constitution.

According to Burgess:

The parties do not dispute that UNOCAL, the project owner, is “potentially liable for securing payment of compensation” under AS 23.30.045(a) and, therefore, UNOCAL falls within the definition of “employer” and is immune from common law liability. Instead, Schiel defends against UNOCAL’s motion for summary judgment by arguing that the 2004 amendments to AS 23.30.045(a) (making the project owner liable for compensation) and AS 23.30.055 (including the project owner and contractor within the definition of employer) violate the Alaska constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, procedural due process and substantive due process.

Schiel v. Union Oil, 3:07-cv-00030-TMB (D.Alaska Order of Apr. 2, 2008).