Opinion ID: 1420265
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The unpaid wages, overtime, and penalties claim

Text: Kotowski argues that her unpaid wages, overtime, and penalties claim had an independent basis in state law, was not dependent on the CBA, and should not have been taken from the jury. She bases this claim on AS 23.05.140. [8] Alaska Statute 23.05.140 confers on an employee an independent statutory right that requires no CBA interpretation to adjudicate. [9] As the Supreme Court has said in analyzing a similar California statutory right, the primary text for determining whether [the plaintiff] was entitled to a penalty was not the [CBA], but a calendar. Livadas, 512 U.S. at 124, 114 S.Ct. 2068. Insofar as Kotowski and Norcon might disagree on the applicable wage rate, and on the degree that Kotowski might claim that she was owed extended post-discharge pay or other special payments under the CBA, such claims would be pre-empted by the LMRA since their adjudication would require interpretation of the CBA. Insofar as Kotowski merely demands unpaid wages and overtime pay she never received, however, her claims could be adjudicated without reference to the CBA, as could the issue of any statutory penalties also owed. These claims were not pre-empted by the LMRA, and the superior court erred in directing a verdict concerning them. The superior court did not err when it included the $8,494.40 award for lost earnings in Kotowski's judgment. Under the affirmative answers given in the special verdict, the award addressed damages legally caused by sexual harassment. [10] Kotowski's lost earnings claims under other theories need not be retried as she has received what presumably is a full award of lost earnings. She is, however, entitled to a trial on her unpaid wages, overtime, and penalties claims.