Alaska Employment Law

Three opinions from the Alaska Supreme Court this morning address issues of interest to employment or civil rights lawyers. 

Property interest: In Heitz v. State, Op. No. 6407 (Alaska Aug. 28, 2009), the Court revisited what constitutes a “property interest” protected by State Due Process, and held that foster care reimbursement payments from the State are protected “property.”  “The hallmark of property . . . is an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which cannot be removed except for cause.”  Thus, the Court required the State to provide Due Process to recipients from whom the State sought recoupment. 

James Davis, Goriune Dudukgian, and Ryan Fortson from the Northern Justice Project in Anchorage represented the class of recipients.  John Erickson, Anchorage AAG, represented the State.

Civil rights attorney fees: AS 09.60.010(c) is what remains of the public interest doctrine after the Alaska Legislative took aim.  It provides full fees to some claimants who prevail on claims under the state (or federal) constitution.  In State v. Jacob, Op. No. 6402 (Alaska Aug. 28, 2009), the Court held that the prevailing plaintiffs didn’t qualify for full fees because they first raised their constitutional theories in a summary judgment motion, and won relief solely on statutory grounds.  The Court affirmed the trial court’s award of enhanced fees under Rule 82. 

Daniel Rogers of the Alaska Immigration Justice Project in Anchorage represented the plaintiffs.  Joanne Grace, Anchorage AAG, represented the State.

Rule 68 Offer of Judgment:  In Sayer v. Bashaw, Op. No. 6404 (Alaska Aug. 28, 2009), the employee plaintiff lost at trial, after refusing an Offer of Judgment for $10,111, which, if accepted, would have led to “dismissal with prejudice,” but not judgment.  (The defendant doctor explained that he didn’t wish to tarnish his record, or incur additional malpractice premiums, with a formal judgment.)   The Court affirmed Judge Hal Brown’s conclusion that the Offer didn’t meet Rule 68 standards (and thus its rejection didn’t lead to enhanced fees of $75,000) and thus acceptance wouldn’t have led to entry of judgment.  The employee didn’t challenge the Rule 82 partial fee award of $31,500.

Jeff and Rick Friedman represented the employee.  Tim Dooley represented the employer.   All counsel practice in Anchorage.