Alaska Employment Law

The Alaska Supreme Court has vacated a jury verdict for an employer sued for constructive discharge because the trial judge excluded evidence that the employer had suggested that resignation would avoid discipline by a state licensing body or criminal prosecution.

The Police Chief for the City of St. Paul had suggested to a municipal police officer that the Alaska Police Standards Council wouldn’t revoke the officer’s license (or that the District Attorney wouldn’t prosecute) if he resigned, rather than was terminated for contracting a bigamous marriage in violation of state law.  The officer did resign, but then sued for constructive discharge.  After then-Superior Court Judge (now Justice) Craig Stowers excluded evidence of the Chief’s suggestion, the jury returned a special verdict finding no constructive discharge.  The Supreme Court held that the exclusion was prejudicial.

In a separate discussion, the Court (per C. J. Carpeneti) emphasized that it hadn’t passed on the propriety of Stowers’ jury instruction defining “constructive discharge” to require an explicit employer threat to fire if the employee didn’t resign.  The Court stated: “While we have found ‘resign or be fired’ threats to constitute constructive discharge, we have also found constructive discharge in situations where no such explicit threats existed.”  P. 13.

Schofield v. City of St. Paul, ___ P.3d ___, Op. No. 6509 (Alaska Sept. 3, 2010)