Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed summary judgment in an employee's claims against the City of Barrow arising from her demotion and resignation. The court affirmed judgment on the employee's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process and Alaska Whistleblower Act claims, holding that she was an at-will employee and had not made a protected report while employed. The court reversed judgment on the wrongful termination claim because admissible evidence created genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the demotion breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Okpik had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment sufficient to support a due-process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Whether Okpik engaged in protected activity under the Alaska Whistleblower Act by reporting or participating in an investigation after her resignation.
- Whether Okpik presented sufficient admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that her demotion constituted constructive discharge and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, thereby supporting a wrongful-termination claim.
Holdings
- Okpik had no constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment because the Barrow Code made her finance-director position confidential or managerial and at-will, serving at the pleasure of the mayor.
- Okpik's post-resignation report to a city council member and post-resignation participation in an investigation did not constitute protected activity because the Alaska Whistleblower Act protects employees who report or participate in an investigation while employed.
- Summary judgment was improper on the wrongful-termination claim because Okpik presented sufficient admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the stated reasons for her demotion were pretextual and whether the employer objectively breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Key quotations
“We affirm the grant of summary judgment on the employee's § 1983 claim because she was an at-will employee and had no property interest in continued employment.” (675)
“Because the employee did not make a report to a public body or participate in an investigation while employed, we also affirm the superior court's grant of summary judgment on the whistleblower claim.” (675)
“But the employee presented sufficient admissible evidence to create genuine issues of material fact as to whether her demotion was wrongful.” (675)
“Alaska Statute 39.90.100 only protects employees who "blow the whistle" during their employment.” (678-679)
“Taken together, this evidence creates an issue of material fact about whether Barrow objectively breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” (680-681)
Factual background
Lucy Okpik worked for the City of Barrow from 1994 and served as finance director for nearly eight years. After Nathaniel Olemaun became mayor, he was overpaid nearly $20,000 from October 2004 through March 2005, and Okpik knew of the overpayment but did not report it while employed. On April 14, 2005, Olemaun told Okpik he intended to replace her as finance director and reassign her as senior accountant, citing budget problems and her qualifications; Okpik resigned effective April 22. After resigning, she reported the overpayment to a city council member and participated in an investigation. She alleged that the demotion was intended to retaliate against her or shift blame for the mayor's improper compensation.
Procedural history
Okpik sued the City of Barrow in April 2006, asserting due-process, whistleblower, wrongful-termination, and emotional-distress claims. The superior court initially denied summary judgment on the wrongful-termination claim but, on reconsideration, granted summary judgment for Barrow on that claim as well as on the § 1983 and whistleblower claims. Okpik appealed the resulting summary judgment order; the emotional-distress claims were not appealed.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded for further proceedings on Okpik's wrongful-termination claim. The summary judgment rulings on the § 1983 and Alaska Whistleblower Act claims were affirmed.