Opinion ID: 1684886
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sec 39.90.120 Relief and penalties.

Text: (a) A person who alleges a violation of AS 39.90.100 may bring a civil action and the court may grant appropriate relief, including punitive damages. (b) A person who violates or attempts to violate AS 39.90.100 is also liable for a civil fine of not more than $10,000. The attorney general may enforce this subsection. (c) A person who attempts to prevent another person from making a report or participating in a matter under AS 39.90.100(a) with intent to impede or prevent a public inquiry on the matter is liable for a civil fine of not more than $10,000. Alaska Stat. § 39.90.120. The statutory scheme did not define person and did not define employer as including a person. Id. § 39.90.140(2). The court reasoned as follows: Subsection .120(a) authorizes a person who alleges a violation of section .100 to bring a civil action, and it authorizes the court in which the action is brought to grant appropriate relief, including punitive damages. Subsection (a) does not, however, specify the defendants against whom the civil action may be brought. It is logical to suppose that any person or entity which is capable of violating or attempting to violate section .100 may be a defendant under subsection (a) of section.120. Subsection .120(b) recognizes that individuals  that is, individual government employees  are capable of violating or attempting to violate section .100.[FN9] It follows that the defendants who may be sued under subsection.120(a) include individuals as well as public employers. Further, this conclusion is implied by the text of subsection.120(b), which states that a person who violates ... [section .100] is also liable for a civil fine . . . . The word also implies that the person described is also liable under subsection .120(a). FN9. To conclude otherwise, one would have to read subsection (b) as authorizing the attorney general of the state to sue the state for a civil fine which would be paid by the state to the state. Such a reading would be an absurdity. Salvucci, 950 P.2d at 1124-25. Our Whistleblower Act is much more explicit with respect to individual liability than is either the New Jersey statute construed in Palladino or the Alaska statute construed in Salvucci . I would give our Act the same liberal construction required of all remedial statutes in favor of the remedy provided by law, or in favor of those entitled to the benefits of the statute, Ky. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 13 S.W.3d at 611, and hold that the Act means what it says  policy-making, supervisory, and managerial employees who violate its provisions are subject to civil actions for punitive damages. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.