Opinion ID: 1420265
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Virginia Perry's testimony

Text: Virginia Perry was a Norcon employee and foreman of a crew working on the oil spill cleanup. Her supervisor was Posehn. She was allowed to testify that Posehn had made sexual advances to her, that she had rejected them, and that he had retaliated by humiliating her in front of her crew and giving her and her crew difficult work assignments. She testified that the women Posehn was close to were given the cushy jobs. She said that she was unaware of any Norcon procedures for reporting sexual harassment, that if such procedures existed she would have used them, and that she and her crew were terrified by Posehn. Norcon argues that Perry's testimony was far more prejudicial than probative and the court should have excluded it under Evidence Rule 403. [12] Norcon apparently never objected to the portions of her testimony outlined above. [13] Under these circumstances, we consider this point waived. See Williams v. Utility Equip., Inc., 837 P.2d 1112, 1116-17 (Alaska 1992).