Alaska Employment Law

Employment lawyers often litigate whether a defendant may require a discrimination plaintiff to undergo a Rule 35 psychological examination.  The parties to a pending Alaska discrimination case have resolved that issue among themselves by means of an interesting stipulation.

Donte Kelly sued Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. for racial harassment and retaliation, under both federal law (Title VII and §§ 1981 and 1985) and state law (Title 18).  In his Complaint, Kelly alleged that he had sustained “severe emotional distress [and] humiliation,” as well as economic loss, from the discrimination.

The parties have now stipulated as follows:

The employer agreed to “refrain from requiring that plaintiff undergo a FRCP 35(a) psychological independent mental examination (’IME’), either voluntarily or pursuant to a court order,” in return for which Plaintiff dropped any claim

1)  for IIED or NIED;

2)  of “any mental, psychological, or psychiatric injury or disorder”;

3)  of “any unusually severe Emotional Distress”;  and

4)  for “anything more than garden-variety Emotional Distress.”

The Plaintiff also agreed not to “offer any expert (or treating health professional) testimony to support any of his Emotional Distress claims.”

The parties agreed that their stipulation would be included in a jury instruction.

District Judge Russel Holland adopted the stipulation.

Kelly v. Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., Case No. 3:09-cv-0027 (D.Alaska)

William Ingaldson represents the Plaintiff; Terrance Turner and Patricia Vecera represent employer MEA.  All counsel practice in Anchorage.