Opinion ID: 2510862
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Witness retaliation is against the public policy of Alaska.

Text: In Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc ., we recognized that a retaliatory discharge in violation of an explicit public policy gives rise to a tort as well as a contract claim. [7] We concluded that the State of Alaska has explicit public policies that protect employees who make workers' compensation claims and who serve as whistleblowers. [8] Several Alaska statutes demonstrate that the state also has an explicit policy of protecting witnesses from retaliation. This protective policy is most clearly stated in AS 11.56.510, which makes it a crime to retaliate against a witness by using force, damaging property, or making threats. [9] Other statutes contain witness protection provisions, including the Alaska Occupational Safety and Health Act, [10] the Alaska Human Rights Law, [11] and the Alaska Assisted Living Homes Act. [12] Through these laws, the state has clearly stated a public policy of protecting witnesses from retaliation. Even though APC's alleged conduct probably does not violate the letter of any of these laws, [13] its actions are contrary to the policy reflected in the statutes. Thus, we hold that there is an actionable public policy tort in Alaska for retaliation against witnesses in legal proceedings. In reaching this conclusion, we are persuaded by cases from other jurisdictions that have held various forms of witness retaliation to be contrary to public policy. [14] For example, in Page v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., the West Virginia Supreme Court held that it is against substantial public policy of West Virginia to discharge an at-will employee because such employee has given or may be called to give truthful testimony in a legal action. [15] The court found support for this policy in state laws prohibiting wilful perjury and false swearing[] or procuring another to do so and prohibiting intimidating or impeding any witness[] or attempting to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court. [16] Allowing a tort remedy under these circumstances also furthers the state's interest in maintaining an effective method of judicial dispute resolution. Subjecting employers to tort liability for retaliating against employees who testify in legal proceedings dissuades retaliatory conduct. It also reduces the temptation for employees, fearing adverse responses from their employers, to provide false testimony or disobey a subpoena. [17]