Alaska Employment Law

U. S. District Judge Ralph Beistline has dismissed some, but not all of the claims in the second lawsuit filed by Red Dog mine employee Greg Conitz concerning application of the preference for NANA shareholders.   In the first case (Conitz I), Beistline granted summary judgment for the mine operator (Teck Alaska), holding, alternately, that a) Conitz was clearly less qualified than the competing applicants; and b) the shareholder preference rule was not an illegal proxy for race.  On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed Beistline’s first holding (on qualifications), and didn’t address the second (the shareholder preference). 

In Conitz II, the employee sued over promotions Teck Cominco made after the employee filed the Complaint, but before the court entered formal judgment in Conitz I.  He again attacked the legality of the shareholder preference.

On November 4th, Judge Beistline did the following:

1) held that challenges to promotional decisions made between the filing of the Complaint and the date of summary judgment in Conitz I are barred by res judicata, since Conitz “could have” brought those claims in Conitz I, presumably by amending and filing a Supplemental Complaint.  But Beistline held that res judicata doesn’t bar the challenge to a promotional decision made between the summary judgment and the entry of judgment (the July 2008 promotion); and

2) held that the shareholder preference-based challenge to the July 2008 promotion is not barred by collateral estoppel, because the Conitz I summary judgment was only alternatively based on the legality of the shareholder preference, and the 9th Circuit affirmance of the Conitz I judgment was based solely on the alternative ground of lack of qualifications.

Ken Covell of Fairbanks represents the employee.  Sean Halloran and Tom Daniel, both of Anchorage, represent defendant Teck and intervenor NANA, respectively.

11/23/09 Update:  Judge Beistline has issued several orders clarifying and amending his November 4th opinion.