Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment rejecting Cindy Lentine’s claims that the State breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by terminating her for submitting an inaccurate timesheet. The court held that Lentine failed to prove subjective bad faith, an unfair investigation, or disparate treatment. It also affirmed the ruling that her unfair labor practice claim was untimely and the award of attorney’s fees to the State.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State breached the subjective component of Alaska's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by terminating Lentine based on the alleged bad faith or bias of a supervisor who was involved in initiating the investigation.
- Whether the State breached the objective component of the implied covenant through an unfair investigation.
- Whether the State breached the objective component of the implied covenant by treating Lentine differently from similarly situated employees.
- Whether the superior court abused its discretion by finding Lentine's unfair labor practice claim untimely and waived.
- Whether the superior court abused its discretion in awarding the State attorney's fees and declining to abate or reduce the award.
Holdings
- Lentine failed to prove that the State terminated her with an improper or impermissible motive or that the allegedly biased supervisor was a significant factor in the termination decision.
- Lentine failed to prove that the State's investigation was unfair or unreasonable.
- Lentine failed to establish disparate treatment because she did not identify a similarly situated employee who committed the same timesheet-falsification infraction and received materially different discipline.
- The superior court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Lentine's unfair labor practice claim was untimely and waived because she raised it for the first time during cross-examination at trial.
- The superior court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the State $50,586.14 in attorney's fees and costs or in declining to abate the award under AS 09.60.010(e).
Key quotations
“The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing covers all employment contracts in Alaska.” (376)
“It has both a subjective and an objective component.” (376)
“An employer must "treat like employees alike," and disparate employee treatment can "violate the objective aspect of the implied covenant."” (379)
Factual background
Cindy Lentine, an administrative manager for the Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation, took leave to accompany a coworker to the Mayo Clinic but later initialed an amended timesheet reporting that she had worked a full 37.5-hour week. An investigation found that she had worked at most one to two hours per day and had falsely claimed a full week's pay; Lentine and the coworker who altered the timesheet were terminated. Lentine argued that the termination resulted from a biased supervisor, an unfair investigation, and disparate treatment compared with other employees.
Procedural history
Lentine filed suit against the State in August 2008. The superior court denied cross-motions for summary judgment, conducted a bench trial, ruled for the State, held that the unfair labor practice claim was untimely and waived, and awarded the State $50,586.14 in attorney's fees and costs. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.