Even if we choose to reach the merits of the denial of additional discovery, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Plenty of evidence exists that Braun was on notice that the Bank would argue his termination stemmed from a reduction in force. Braun knew of the Bank's reduction in force defense as early as October 1982 when Paulson responded to Braun's discrimination complaint filed before the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission. The Bank's position was maintained consistently throughout those proceedings, as well as in proceedings before the Alaska State Human Rights Commission. We affirm the superior court's grant of summary judgment to the Bank on its defense of excuse.
Some dispute exists as to whether Braun was hired as an officer or as a trainee.
See also Alaska R. Civ. We examine the record and employ de novo review. As to whether there are any genuine issues of material fact, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Therefore, we need not decide whether economic necessity constitutes good cause. Given our agreement with the granting of summary judgment on the Bank's defense, we need not address Braun's other claims of error.