Opinion ID: 855991
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The employees’ motion for sanctions

Text: The employees moved for sanctions against Chief Hankla and the City for 1 AS 18.80.220(a) makes it unlawful for an employer “to discriminate against a person in compensation or in a term, condition, or privilege of employment . . . because of the person’s age, physical or mental disability, sex, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, or parenthood when the reasonable demands of the position do not require distinction . . . .” -5- 6765 spoliation of evidence. The employees alleged Chief Hankla and the City failed to turn over two pieces of evidence: Chief Hankla’s police department personnel file and former Hoonah Mayor Alf Skaflestad’s citizen complaints file. The employees pointed to testimony from the previous police chief describing Chief Hankla’s personnel file, including performance and psychological evaluations, medical file, and discipline record. The employees claimed that they did not receive the personnel file and that it was reasonable to conclude Chief Hankla had destroyed it. The employees also pointed to testimony from Skaflestad describing a file of complaints against Chief Hankla “several inches” thick and kept in a “secret” drawer in Skaflestad’s desk. Claiming they did not receive the complete file, the employees argued it must have been destroyed. The employees requested sanctions, including exclusion of evidence and shifting the burden of proof. Chief Hankla and the City asserted they had produced both files and argued the allegedly destroyed or withheld evidence was irrelevant. The court denied the motion for sanctions, finding no evidence of destruction or failure to produce evidence. 3. Chief Hankla and the City’s motion to exclude expert testimony and allegedly new claims Chief Hankla and the City moved to exclude Welsh’s and Lt. Mills’s expert testimony and reports on economic damages and to exclude evidence relating to claims not pleaded, including Welsh’s wrongful termination and retaliation claims. Chief Hankla and the City argued that the expert testimony and reports were prejudicially late and that the deadline to amend pleadings had passed. The employees responded that both sides had caused the delay in submitting expert testimony and reports. Welsh also argued that her claim for economic damages was based on (1) being compelled, as a result of Chief Hankla’s harassment, to leave her position at the police department and (2) a later poor performance review from Chief Hankla that prevented her from acquiring new work. Welsh argued that -6- 6765 Chief Hankla and the City were aware that she sought economic damages and that although the amended complaint did not specifically reference constructive termination or retaliation, Chief Hankla and the City “ha[d] done discovery and litigated with knowledge of [the claims].” The superior court granted the motion to exclude Welsh’s wrongful constructive discharge and retaliation claims and to preclude Welsh’s and Lt. Mills’s expert testimony. The court recognized a plaintiff does not have to plead a separate cause of action for constructive discharge to receive economic damages, but found Welsh had not indicated she was pursuing economic damages until the last day of discovery and did not itemize her damages until two weeks before trial. The court further concluded it was not clear from the pleadings that Welsh was asserting a retaliation claim. 4. Motion for summary judgment Chief Hankla and the City moved for summary judgment on all of the employees’ claims. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Chief Hankla and the City on all but one claim, concluding that onlyWelsh’s sexual harassment claim presented a genuine issue of material fact. The court explained that an issue of fact existed whether Welsh was still employed by the City when Chief Hankla allegedly made his final request to see Welsh’s breasts, the only alleged request made while he was police chief. The court also concluded that if the City could be liable, then Chief Hankla could be personally liable under the aiding and abetting provision of AS 18.80.260.2 As to Lt. Mills’s wrongful constructive discharge claim, the court noted that Lt. Mills did not appear to contest summary judgment. The court explained that Chief Hankla and the City had made a prima facie showing that there was no material issue of 2 AS 18.80.260 provides, “It is unlawful for a person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of an act forbidden under this chapter or to attempt to do so.” -7- 6765 fact as to the constructive discharge element of the claim, and entered summary judgment in their favor without considering whether there was sufficient evidence to support a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As to Lt. Mills’s claim of retaliation against public policy for exercising his right to seek public employment, the court entered summary judgment because “[Lt. Mills] provid[ed] no authority whatsoever for the existence of the tort . . . nor [was] the court aware of any case in which [that] tort has been recognized.” As to Mills’s and McLaughlin’s sexual harassment claims, the court concluded Chief Hankla’s alleged conduct was not “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim[s’] employment,” and could not amount to a hostile work environment in violation of AS 18.80.220. Additionally, as to Mills’s and McLaughlin’s claims against the City for denial of overtime wages, the court explained that the Alaska Wage and Hour Act3 under which the employees brought their claim did not apply to subdivisions of the state, including the City. Although Mills and McLaughlin argued that alterations of time cards and denial of overtime amounted to violations of federal law and the Hoonah code, to discriminatory treatment, and to breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the court concluded that none of those “hypothetical causes of action” had been pleaded and declined to consider the theories. As to the negligent hiring, training, and retention claims against the City, the court concluded the claims were precluded by discretionary function immunity under AS 09.65.070.4 With respect to negligent training, the court explained it was “unaware 3 AS 23.10.050-.150. 4 AS 09.65.070(d) provides, “An action for damages may not be brought against a municipality or any of its agents, officers, or employees if the claim . . . is based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary (continued...) -8- 6765 of authority for the proposition that there is an independent cause of action for ‘negligent training,’ ” but noted it may be relevant to the remaining sexual harassment claim. 5. Chief Hankla and the City’s motion for reconsideration Chief Hankla and the City moved for reconsideration of the denial of summary judgment on Welsh’s sexual harassment claim. They pointed to portions of Welsh’s affidavit, deposition testimony, and interrogatory responses which they asserted showed that Chief Hankla’s only alleged request to see her breasts while he was police chief occurred after Welsh had left the City’s employment. At a status hearing, the court granted the reconsideration motion and entered summary judgment against Welsh on this final claim. Welsh protested the ruling, concerned that it precluded a common law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court responded that Welsh had not pleaded intentional infliction of emotional distress. 6. Offers of judgment and fee awards Shortly before discovery closed, Chief Hankla and the City tendered Alaska Civil Rule 68 offers of judgment of $2,000 each to Lt. Mills and dispatchers Mills and McLaughlin, and $4,000 to dispatcher Welsh. The employees did not accept these offers, and following dismissal of all of the employees’ claims by way of summary judgment, Chief Hankla and the City moved for Rule 68 attorney’s fees. The employees opposed, arguing that the Rule 68 offers were invalid because they would have left the employees with no net recovery. The superior court rejected the employees’ argument and granted the motion in full, holding the employees jointly and severally liable for Rule 68 fees and costs in excess of $100,000. 4 (...continued) function . . . .” -9- 6765 7. Appeal On appeal the employees challenge the superior court’s denial of discovery sanctions, grant of summary judgment, and entry of attorney’s fees.