Opinion ID: 2510862
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The superior court applied the incorrect statutory cap.

Text: Reust argues that if a punitive damages cap applies, the superior court should have applied AS 09.17.020(f), rather than AS 09.17.020(h). He is correct. The superior court reduced the punitive damages award to $500,000 per AS 09.17.020(h), which lists increasing cap levels that depend on the employer's number of employees. [93] That subsection applies to an action against an employer to recover damages for an unlawful employment practice prohibited by AS 18.80.220, which proscribes various forms of employment discrimination. Reust argues that his action does not fall under AS 18.80.220; rather, it is a claim for retaliatory wrongful discharge. Therefore, if any punitive damages cap were applicable, Reust claims it should have been the cap imposed by AS 09.17.020(f). That subsection states that, [e]xcept as provided in (g) and (h) of this section, an award of punitive damages may not exceed the greater of (1) three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff in the action; or (2) the sum of $500,000. APC argues that because Alaska did not recognize a wrongful discharge tort when the tort reform legislation was enacted, the trial court correctly applied AS 09.17.020(h). According to APC, AS 18.80.220 provided the only known cause of action for awarding punitive damages in the context of employment termination, so the legislature could well have concluded that it had adequately described the cap for termination torts by the manner in which the subsection (h) cap was drafted. Alaska Statute 09.17.020(h) limits punitive damages recoveries in AS 18.80.220 discrimination cases, but does not purport to limit awards for all types of torts arising from an improper termination. For example, APC concedes that AS 09.17.020(h) does not address torts such as intentional infliction of emotional distress or defamation that may arise from a non-discriminatory termination. APC cites no legislative history suggesting that the legislature intended AS 09.17.020(h) to have a broader application beyond awards in discrimination cases arising under AS 18.80.220. Because we conclude that AS 09.17.020(h) does not apply here, we remand for application of AS 09.17.020(f). Once the correct punitive damages award has been determined under the statutory cap, it will also be necessary for the superior court to ensure that the award is not excessive per the statutory factors listed in AS 09.17.020(c) [94] and the three guideposts outlined by the United States Supreme Court. [95]