Alaska Employment Law

In Peterson v. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Slip Op. 6489 (Alaska July 2, 2010), the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the State in an employment lawsuit involving a seasonal forester formerly employed by the Department. The case itself is not too significant (except, of course, for Mr. Peterson); however, the Court’s opinion reviewed a number of different procedural and legal principles that govern analysis of employment‑related claims. The principles frequently arise in different contexts. It is useful to summarize them. They include:

· The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inheres in every employment relationship. The covenant has both subjective and objective components, and exists to protect the parties’ reasonable expectations.

· An employer’s good faith decision that misconduct occurred is sufficient to support discipline, and does not give rise to a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing even if it can later be shown that the decision was mistaken (factually wrong).

· The Court will only review the record that was before the superior court when it granted summary judgment. The Court will not review facts that were later presented to the superior court by way of a motion for reconsideration or similar procedural motion.

· The Court will look to persuasive federal case law for purposes of analyzing Title 18 employment discrimination claims.

· A hostile work environment claim must involve serious or pervasive misconduct that creates an objectively hostile work environment. Teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents are not sufficient (unless the isolated incidents are extremely serious).

· The McDonnell Douglas test will be used to evaluate Title 18 employment discrimination claims because it is “usually impossible” for an employee to prove intentional discrimination.

· Under McDonnell Douglas, an employee must establish a prima facie case by showing that he or she was qualified for the job, was a member of a protected classification, suffered an adverse employment action, and that another person not in the same protected classification received more favorable treatment. The burden of production then shifts to the employer to show that its decision was justified by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. If the employer makes such a showing, the employee must show that the employer’s proffered reason is a pretext (fabrication) to cover up impermissible discrimination.

· In terms of the McDonnell Douglas test, an employee may not rely on his or her subjective perceptions and arguments to establish pretext. An employee may not rest on “unsupported assumptions and speculation.”

· Unsupported assertions in motion papers or pleadings are not evidence. A party opposing summary judgment must either point to the absence of evidence supporting the motion or produce admissible evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact.