Opinion ID: 6329622
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The final determination argument

Text: Alborn alternatively appears to argue that the Department of Labor took inconsistent positions with respect to the Act’s coverage and that enforcement therefore should be estopped. Specifically, Alborn complains that the Department of Labor characterized Wage and Hour’s Bifurcation Letter as its “final” determination; that the Bifurcation Letter clearly indicated only some work items would be covered by the Act; and that the Department of Labor changed its position by deciding that all of the work items were covered. a. Assertion of a position by conduct or word The ALJ concluded that Wage and Hour “asserted a position” in its Bifurcation Letter.71 Wage and Hour “maintain[ed that] the overall construction project as contemplated could be covered” by the Act, but it parsed individual items that would not be covered under a compromise proposal. Less than two weeks later, Wage and Hour characterized the Bifurcation Letter as its “final answer.” With respect to the 69 See Municipality of Anchorage v. Schneider, 685 P.2d 94, 97 (Alaska 1984) (explaining courts should consider public interest when evaluating estoppel arguments made against government). 70 See Western Alaska, 909 P.2d 330, 332-33 (Alaska 1996) (explaining Act’s public interest purpose). 71 See Schneider, 685 P.2d at 97 (asserting position is element of estoppel). -24- 7589 construction project as governed by Amendment 54, the Department of Labor thus took a stance.