lingley v. alaska airlines, inc., alaska (2016)

Upload: scribd-government-docs

Post on 01-Mar-2018

219 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    1/28

    Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFICREPORTER. Readers arerequested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email [email protected].

    THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFALASKA

    HELENA.LINGLEY,

    Appellant,

    v.

    ALASKAAIRLINES,INC.andDANKANE,

    Appellees.

    )) SupremeCourtNo.S-15529

    SuperiorCourtNo.1PE-12-00047CI

    OPINION

    No.7104May13,2016

    )

    ))

    )

    ))

    )))

    AppealfromtheSuperiorCourtoftheStateofAlaska,FirstJudicialDistrict,Petersburg,WilliamB.Carey,Judge.

    Appearances:FrederickW.Triem,Petersburg, forAppellant.GregoryS.Fisher andElizabethP.Hodes, Davis Wright

    TremaineLLP,Anchorage,forAppellees.

    Before:Stowers,ChiefJustice,Fabe,Winfree,Maassen,and

    Bolger,Justices.

    BOLGER,Justice.

    I. INTRODUCTION

    A former airline employee sued her former employer for wrongful

    terminationwithoutfirstattemptingtoarbitrateherclaimsundertheprovisionsofacollectivebargainingagreementsubjecttothefederalRailwayLaborAct. Thesuperior

    courtdeniedtheemployeeleavetoamendhercomplaint,concludingthatherclaimsand

    proposedclaimswereprecludedbyfailuretoexhaustcontractualremediesandwere

    preemptedbytheRailwayLaborAct.Butthecollectivebargainingagreementdoesnot

    mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]
  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    2/28

    clearlyandunmistakablywaivetheemployeesrighttolitigateherclaims,aprerequisite

    tofindingherclaimsprecluded. Andanumberofherproposedclaimsmayhavean

    independentstatelawbasisthatdoesnotdependonaninterpretationofthecollective

    bargainingagreement;suchclaimswouldnotbepreemptedbytheRailwayLaborAct.

    Accordinglywereversethesuperiorcourtorderdenyingleavetoamend.

    II. FACTSANDPROCEEDINGS

    InFebruary2012AlaskaAirlinesterminatedHelenLingley,alongtime

    employee,forviolatingcompanyrulesandpolicesaftersheallegedlytookearbudsfrom

    a left-on-boardbox,1madecontradictorystatementsduringtheensuinginvestigation,and

    made discourteous comments about her coworkers. The terms and conditions of

    Lingleysemploymentweregovernedbyacollectivebargainingagreementnegotiated

    byLingleysunion, theInternationalAssociationofMachinistsandAerospace Workers,

    pursuanttothefederalRailwayLaborAct(RLA).2 Thisagreementbroadlyincorporated

    AlaskaAirlinesrulesandpoliciesandgavethecompanytherighttochangethoserules

    andpoliciesatanytime. Employeeswererequiredtobefamiliarwithanychanges.

    Theagreementsetforthathree-stepprocessforgrievingdecisionsthat

    resulted in the lossof pay, namely dischargeandsuspension. The first twosteps

    consistedofaninitialhearingandasecondaryhearing,eachpresidedoverbya

    representativeofAlaskaAirlines;anemployeecouldberepresentedbytheLocalShop

    Stewardand/ortheUnionGeneralChairorhis/herdesignee. Thethirdstepwasan

    appeal before the System Board of Adjustment, a three-member arbitration panel

    consistingofaCompanymember,aUnionmember[,]andaneutralreferee. During

    1 Low-valueitemsleftbehindbypassengerswereplacedinaleft-on-board

    box;companyrulesandpolicesprohibitedemployeesfromtakingtheseitems.

    2 45U.S.C.151188(2012).

    -2- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    3/28

    thisfinalstep,employeescouldberepresentedbysuchpersonorpersonsastheymay

    chooseanddesignate,inconformancewiththeconstitutionoftheUnion.

    Afterreceivingthedischargenotice,Lingleyinitiated thegrievanceprocess

    throughherunion. OverthenextfewmonthsAlaskaAirlinesheldtwohearingsin

    whichaunionrepresentativerepresentedLingleysinterests. Beforeeachhearing,

    AlaskaAirlinesofferedLingleya last-chanceagreementwhichwouldhaveallowed

    Lingleytoremainemployedifsheadmittedjustcauseexistedforherdischarge.Lingley

    declinedbothoffers.

    Followingtheinitialandsecondaryhearings,thepresidingcompanyofficer

    issuedwrittendecisionsdenyingLingleysgrievance. Theunionthenappealedthe

    grievancetotheSystemBoardofAdjustmentforarbitration. Butaboutthreemonths

    later,theunioninformedLingleythatnoappealwillbemadeandthecaseisnowclosed

    in[its]files. ThatsamedaytheunionsentalettertotheSystemBoardofAdjustment

    askingittoremovethematterfromitsdocket. Nothingintherecordsuggeststhat

    Lingleyattemptedtopursuearbitrationonherown.

    Aboutfourmonthslater,inDecember2012,Lingleyfiledacomplaintin

    thesuperiorcourtallegingwrongfulterminationandbreachoftheimpliedcovenantof

    goodfaithandfairdealing. ThecomplaintnamedAlaskaAirlinesandDanKane,the

    manager who signed her discharge notice, as defendants (collectively, Alaska

    Airlines). Thatcomplaintapparentlywasnotserved. InApril2013,Lingleyfiledan

    amendedcomplaintagainbroadlyalleging wrongfulterminationandbreachof the

    impliedcovenantofgoodfaithandfairdealing.

    Inresponse,AlaskaAirlinesmovedtodismissunderAlaskaCivilRule12(b)(1)forlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction. Itarguedthat(1)theRLApreempted

    Lingleysclaimsand(2)thecomplaintwasprecludedbyherfailuretoexhaustthe

    remediesavailableunderthecollectivebargainingagreement.Tosupportthemotion,

    -3- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    4/28

    AlaskaAirlinesattachedseveralexhibitsincludingthecollectivebargainingagreement,

    various company rules and policies, Lingleys grievance submission form, and

    correspondencebetweentheunionandAlaskaAirlinesaboutthegrievance.

    Lingleythenmovedforastaypendingdiscovery,arguingthatsheneeded

    information within Alaska Airlines exclusive control. Asexamples she cited the

    exhibitsattachedtothemotiontodismiss,internalmemosandemails,herpersonnelfile,

    andinformationthatwouldbeobtainedviaAlaskaCivilRule26(a)disclosures. Alaska

    Airlinesopposed,assertingthatthejurisdictionalfactsthatservedasthebasisforits

    motiontodismisswereestablishedandundisputed.

    Lingleythenrequestedleavetofileasecondamendedcomplaint. The

    proposedamendedcomplaintallegedfivenewclaims: agediscrimination,economic

    discrimination,retaliation,whistleblowing,andretribution. AlaskaAirlinesopposed,

    arguingthattheclaimswerefutilebasedonthesamepreemptionandpreclusiongrounds

    thatappliedtothefirstamendedcomplaint.3 Thesuperiorcourtagreedandaccordingly

    denied leave to amend. The court also determined that, as Alaska Airlines had

    contended,Lingleyseconomicdiscriminationclaimwaslegallydeficientandthusfutile

    becauseeconomicstatusisnotaprotectedclass.4

    The superior court also denied Lingleys motion for a discovery

    continuanceanddismissedLingleysfirstamendedcomplaintunderCivilRule12(b)(1),

    3 Thoughleavetoamendacomplaintshallbefreelygivenwhenjusticesorequires,acourtmaydenyleavetoamendwhentheproposedclaimswouldbefutile.

    Patterson v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.,347P.3d562,568-69(Alaska2015)(quotingAlaskaR.Civ.P.15(a)).

    4 Lingleys economic discriminationclaim alleged thatAlaska Airlinesterminatedhertoreplaceherwithayoungerandneweremployeewhowouldhavelittle

    ornoseniorityandthuscouldbepaidatalowerlevelofcompensation.

    -4- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    5/28

    concludingthattheclaimswerepreemptedbytheRLA.5 WithrespecttoLingleys

    discoverymotion,thecourtdeterminedthatthejurisdictionalfactswereestablishedand

    undisputed;assuchthecourtcouldconsiderthefactsallegedinAlaskaAirlinesmotion,

    theaffidavits,andtheattacheddocumentaryevidence. Thecourtfurthernotedthat

    Lingleyhadaccesstoallrelevantfactsandthusdelayingtheproceedingslikelywould

    beoflittlebenefittoLingleyandwouldriskprejudicetoAlaskaAirlines.

    Based on these decisions, Alaska Airlinesmoved for final judgment.

    Lingleyopposed,contendingthatthecasewasongoing. Shearguedthatthecourthad

    yettoaddressseveralofherstatelawclaimsincludingthosefordefamation,intentional

    inflictionofemotionaldistress,primafacietort,andspoliationofevidence. Inresponse

    thesuperiorcourtissuedanorderclarifyingthatithadalreadydisposedofallclaimsand

    accordingly thelitigationhadconcluded.It explained thattheunresolvedclaimsLingley

    citedhadnotbeenexplicitlyplednorcouldtheybeinferredfromhercomplaints.

    AlaskaAirlinesthenfiledasecondmotiontoenterfinaljudgment.Lingley

    opposed,againcitingtheunresolvedstatelawclaims;threedayslatershemovedforthe

    courttoreconsideritsclarifyingorder. ThesuperiorcourtdeniedLingleysmotionfor

    reconsiderationandenteredfinaljudgmentforAlaskaAirlines . Lingleyappeals.

    III. STANDARDOFREVIEW

    ThesuperiorcourtdeniedLingleyleavetoamendhercomplaint. We

    generallyreviewthedenialofamotiontoamendapleadingforabuseofdiscretion. 6

    5 Inafootnote,thesuperiorcourtnotedthatAlaskaAirlinesmotionto

    dismisscouldalsobegrantedonthegroundsthat...Lingleyfailedtoexhaustthecontractual remedies that were available to her under the [collective bargainingagreement].

    6 Patterson,347P.3dat568(citingKrause v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough,

    229P.3d168,174(Alaska2010)).

    -5- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    6/28

    A superiorcourt abuses its discretion when the decision on review ismanifestly

    unreasonable.7 Itiswithinatrialcourtsdiscretion,however,todenysuchamotion

    whereamendmentwouldbefutilebecauseitadvancesaclaimordefensethatislegally

    insufficientonitsface.8 Weuseourindependentjudgmenttodeterminewhethersuch

    anamendmentwouldbelegallyinsufficient. 9 Wemayaffirmthesuperiorcourton

    independentgrounds,butonlywhenthosegroundsareestablishedbytherecord.10

    ThesuperiorcourtalsodismissedLingleysactionforlackofsubjectmatter

    jurisdictionunderCivilRule12(b)(1). Wereviewdenovoasuperiorcourtsdecision

    todismissacomplaintforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.11Inreviewingdenovo

    weexerciseourindependentjudgment,adoptingtheruleoflawmostpersuasiveinlight

    ofprecedent,reason,andpolicy.12

    Thisappealalsorequiresustointerpretacollectivebargainingagreement.

    Contractinterpretationpresentsaquestionoflawthatwereviewdenovo. 13 Ourgoal

    7 Ranes & Shine, LLC v. MacDonald Miller Alaska, Inc.,355P.3d503,508

    (Alaska2015)(citingTufco, Inc. v. Pacific Envtl. Corp.,113P.3d668,671(Alaska2005)).

    8 Patterson,347P.3dat568(Alaska2015)(quotingKrause,229P.3dat174).

    9 Id.

    10 Seybert v. Alsworth,367P.3d32,36(Alaska2016).

    11 Healy Lake Vill. v. Mt. McKinley Bank,322P.3d866,871(Alaska2014)

    (quotingRuckle v. Anchorage Sch. Dist.,85P.3d1030,1033(Alaska2004)).

    12 Id.

    13 Larsen v. Municipality of Anchorage,993P.2d428,431(Alaska1999)

    (citingAlaska Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Salvucci,950P.2d1116,1119(Alaska1997)).

    -6- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    7/28

    istogiveeffecttothereasonableexpectationsoftheparties.14 Wediscerntheparties

    intentbylookingtothewrittencontractaswellasextrinsicevidence...atthetimethe

    contractwasmade.15 Ifthereisconflictingextrinsicevidence,we,notajury,must

    decidethequestionofmeaningexceptwherethewrittenlanguage,readincontext,is

    reasonablysusceptibletobothassertedmeanings. 16

    Finallythisappealrequiresstatutoryinterpretation,whichisaquestionof

    law.17 Wedecidequestionsoflawusingourindependentjudgment,adoptingthemost

    persuasiveruleoflawinlightofprecedent,reason,andpolicy.18 Wheninterpretinga

    statuteweconsideritstext,legislativehistory,andpurpose. 19

    IV. DISCUSSION

    A. TheSuperiorCourtAbusedItsDiscretionWhenItDeniedLingleys

    MotionToAmendHerComplaint.

    The superior court denied Lingleys motion to amend her complaint,

    concludingthat theclaims intheproposedamendedcomplaintwerefutilebecause

    LingleydidnotexhausthercontractualremediesandbecausetheRLApreemptedmany

    ofLingleysclaims.

    14 Id. (quotingStepanov v. Homer Elec. Assn,814P.2d731,734(Alaska1991)).

    15 Id. (quotingMunicipality of Anchorage v. Gentile,922P.2d248,256

    (Alaska1996)).

    16 Id. (quotingJohnson v. Schaub,867P.2d812,818(Alaska1994)).

    17 Donahue v. Ledgends, Inc.,331P.3d342,346(Alaska2014) .

    18 Id. (citingASRC Energy Servs. Power &

    Commcns, LLC v. Golden Valley

    Elec. Assn,267P.3d1151,1157(Alaska2011)).

    19 Id.

    -7- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    8/28

    Leavetoamendshallbefreelygivenwhenjusticesorequires.20 Butwe

    haverecognizedthatdenialofleavetoamendmightbejustifiedgivenunduedelay,bad

    faithordilatorymotive... [by]themovant,repeatedfailuretocuredeficienciesby

    amendments . . . ,undueprejudice tothe opposingparty . . . , [or]futilityofthe

    amendment,etc.21 Asnotedabove,weuseourindependentjudgmentindetermining

    whetheranamendmentwouldbelegallyinsufficient. 22

    1. Lingleysmotiontoamendwastimelyandgrantingleavewould

    notcauseapparentprejudicetoAlaskaAirlines.

    AlaskaAirlinesarguesthatallowingLingleytolitigateherclaimswould

    causetheairlineprejudicebecauseithasarighttoresolvethedisputeintheforum

    mandatedbyCongressandselectedbythe parties collective bargainingagreement;this

    alternativeforum,itcontends,shieldsitfromthetimeandexpenseoflitigation.Lingley

    arguesthatAlaskaAirlinespointsonlytorun-of-the-milltasksofdefendinga...

    lawsuit,groundsthatdonotsupportfindingundueprejudice. Weagree.

    Asuperiorcourtmaydenyleavetoamendwhenallowingtheamendment

    wouldcauseundueprejudicetotheotherparty. 23 Buttimeandadditionalexpensealone

    donotsupportsuchafinding.24

    Iftheunderlyingfactsorcircumstancesrelieduponby

    20 AlaskaR.Civ.P.15(a).

    21 Patterson v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.,347P.3d562,569(Alaska2015)(quotingMiller v. Safeway, Inc.,102P.3d282,294(Alaska2004)).

    22 Id. at568.

    23

    Id. at569.

    24 See Miller,102P.3dat295(Giventhatthetimelinefordiscoverywas

    extendedafter[thenonmovingparty]receivednoticeof[themovants]newclaims,[the

    nonmovingparty]wasnotunreasonablyburdenedbythetaskofpreparingforlitigation(continued...)

    -8- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    9/28

    aplaintiffmaybeapropersubjectofrelief,[theplaintiff]oughttobeaffordedan

    opportunitytotest[the]claimonthemerits. 25

    Lingleymovedtofileasecondamendedcomplaintabouttwomonthsafter

    shefiledherfirstamendedcomplaint.Thismotionwastimelyandnothingintherecord

    suggeststhatgrantingitwouldhavecausedAlaskaAirlinesundueprejudice. Thecourt

    hadyettosetatrialdate,andthediscoveryprocesshadyettobegin. Atthisearlystage,

    thehardshipcausedbydenyingLingleytheopportunitytotestthemeritsofherclaims

    outweighsanyprejudicetoAlaskaAirlines.

    2. Becausethecollectivebargainingagreementdidnotclearlyand

    unmistakablywaiveLingleysrighttolitigate,theclaimswere

    notsubjecttomandatoryarbitration.

    ThesuperiorcourtruledthatLingleysproposedclaimswereprecludedby

    herfailuretoexhaustadministrativeremedies. Thoughanemployeemayhavetheright

    topursueaclaiminstatecourtbecausetheclaimisnotpreemptedbytheRLAan

    employeemaywaivetherighttolitigatetheclaimthroughheremploymentcontract. 26

    Lingleycontendsthatheremploymentcontract(thecollectivebargainingagreement)

    doesnotwaiveherrighttopursueclaimsinstatecourt.

    (...continued)

    ofthenewtheories.).

    25 Id. (alteration omitted) (quotingFoman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182

    (1962)).26

    Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.,367P.3d1156,1163-64(Alaska2016),

    (citingHammond v. State, Dept of Transp. &Pub. Facilities,107P.3d871,877(Alaska2005))(discussinglanguageinacollectivebargainingagreementthatisidenticaltothat

    intheagreementgoverningLingleysemployment).

    -9- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    10/28

    InBernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. werecentlyconsideredacollective

    bargainingagreementthatissubstantivelythesameastheonenowbeforeus.27 Weheld

    thattheagreementdoesnotprecludelitigationofanemployeesclaimsinstatecourt

    becausetheagreementdoesnotclearlyandunmistakablywaivetheemployeesrightto

    doso.28 Thatanalysis,whichwesummarizebelow,appliesequallyhere.

    Awaivermustbeclear and unmistakable.29Wewillnotinferfroma

    generalcontractualprovisionthatthepartiesintendedtowaiveastatutorilyprotected

    rightunlesstheundertakingisexplicitlystated. 30 Todeterminewhetherawaiveris

    clearandunmistakable,weapplyatwo-parttest:Thecontractmusteither(1)have

    anarbitrationclausewithaprovisionthroughwhichemployeesspecificallyagreeto

    submit all . . . causes ofaction arisingoutof their employment to arbitration or

    (2)explicitlyincorporatethestatutory...requirementsinadditiontoabroadand

    generalarbitrationclause.31

    Thecollectivebargainingagreement,asweexplainedinBernard,32does

    notsatisfyeitherprongofthistest. First,thoughtheagreementappearstograntthe

    System Board of Adjustment broad jurisdiction over disputes between covered

    employeesandthecompanyauthorizingtheboardtoheardisputesgrowing out of

    grievances or out of interpretation or application of any of the terms of this

    27 Id. at1163-65.

    28 Id. at1165.

    29 Id.at1163(emphasisinoriginal)(quotingMetro. Edison Co. v. NLRB,460

    U.S.693,708(1983)).

    30 Id. (quotingMetro. Edison,460U.S.at708).

    31 Id. (quotingHammond,107P.3dat877).

    32 Id. at1163-65.

    -10- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    11/28

    [a]greementtheagreementalsoappearstolimittheboardsauthority. (Emphasis

    added.) By its terms, the agreement only authorizes the board to hear properly

    submitteddisputes. Toproceedtoarbitration,theagreementnarrowlydefinesproper

    submission:[T]he General Chair mayappealtoarbitrationwithinthirty...calendar

    days. (Emphasisadded.) TheagreementalsonarrowlydefinestheSystemBoardof

    Adjustmentsduties: TheBoardshallconsideranydisputeproperly submitted to it by

    the General Chair oftheUnionorhis/herdesignee,orbytheRepresentativeofthe

    Company;[n]o matter shall be consideredbytheBoardwhichhasnotfirstbeenfully

    processedinaccordancewiththegrievanceandappealprovisionsofthis[a]greement.

    (Emphasesadded.)Theplainlanguageoftheagreementdoesnotgiveanemployee,like

    Lingley,theright to independentlysubmitherclaims toarbitration; theagreement

    recognizesonlythoseappealsbroughtbytheunionoritsrepresentativesorbyAlaska

    Airlines.33 Becauseofthisapparentforeclosure,theagreementfailsthefirstprongofthe

    testforfindingclearandunmistakablewaiveroftherighttopursueclaimsinstate

    court.34

    Thecollectivebargainingagreementalsofailsthesecondprongofthetest

    because it did not explicitly incorporate Alaska Airlines protections against

    discrimination,retaliation,andwhistleblowing. 35 Theagreementbroadlyincorporates

    33 AsinBernard,wedonotdecidewhetherirrespectiveofthelanguageofthecollectivebargainingagreementLingleyhadanindividualrighttoarbitrateherclaims

    whenheruniondeclinedtodoso. See id. at1164.

    34

    Id. at1163-64.35 See id.at1164-65.(Thecollectivebargainingagreementat issuehere also

    lacks the explicit incorporation of the statutory anti-discrimination requirementsnecessarytothesecondprongoftheHammondtest.(quotingHammond,107P.3dat

    877)).

    -11- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    12/28

    AlaskaAirlinesrulesandpolicies. Thesepoliciesincludethosethatprotectemployees

    fromretaliation forairing goodfaithconcernsabout ethicalorcompliance issues,

    harassment,anddiscrimination. Theanti-discriminationprovisionprovides:

    TheCompanyisanequalopportunityemployer. ThismeanstheCompanyiscommittedtoprovidingequalconsiderationin all employment decisions (including, for example,

    recruiting, hiring, training, promotions, pay practices,

    benefits, disciplinary actions and terminations) withoutregardtoage,race,color,gender,nationalorigin,religion,

    maritalstatus,sexualorientation,disability,veteranstatusor

    anyotherclassificationprotectedbyfederal,state,orlocallaws....

    ActsofdiscriminationandharassmentnotonlyviolateourCompanyvaluesandpolicies,butmay also violate federal,

    state, and local lawsandarestrictlyprohibited.

    (Emphasisadded.) Theanti-retaliationclauseprovides:

    TheCompanydoesnottolerateretaliationofanykindfor

    raisingconcernsormakingareportingoodfaithaboutan

    ethicalorcomplianceissue.Tobemadeingoodfaithdoesnotmeanyouhavetoberight,however,itdoesmeanyou

    havetoprovidecompleteandaccurateinformationandyou

    havetohaveareasonablebeliefthatitmaybetrue.

    LikeBernard, noneof theincorporatedprovisionstowhichAlaskaAirlines

    directsusexpresslycitesAlaskalaw. 36 And,mostimportantly,thecollectivebargaining

    agreementgrantsAlaskaAirlinesthepowertounilaterallymodifyitsrulesandpolices

    duringthetermofthe[a]greement. Undersuchcircumstances,itcannotbesaidthat

    anemployeeclearlyandunmistakablywaivesherrighttopursuestatelawclaimsinstate

    See id. at1164-65.

    -12- 7104

    36

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    13/28

    courtbecausetodosoanemployeemustknowwhatrightssheiswaiving.37Wethus

    wouldreachthesameconclusioneveniftheincorporatedcompanyrulesandpolicies

    explicitlycitedAlaskalaw.38

    ThesuperiorcourtsconclusionthatLingleysproposedclaimswerebarred

    byher failuretoexhaustcontractual remedieswasmistakenbecausethecollective

    bargainingagreementdoesnotclearlyandunmistakablywaiveherrighttolitigatethose

    claims.

    3. TheRLAdoesnotpreemptclaimsthathaveanindependent

    statelawbasisand donotturnon thecollectivebargaining

    agreement.

    ThesuperiorcourtruledthatmanyofLingleysclaimswerepreemptedby

    theRLAandthereforewerefutile.TheRLAprovidesamandatoryarbitralmechanism

    forthepromptandorderlysettlementoftwoclassesofdisputes39: majordisputes,

    whichrelatetotheformationofcollective[bargaining]agreementsoreffortstosecure

    37 Id.

    38

    Id. at1165.([W]ecouldnotfindaclearandunmistakablewaiveroftheemployeesrighttopursuestatelawclaimsinstatecourtwhentheemployerretainsaunilateralrighttomodifyoreliminatethelanguageonwhichthewaiverisbased.).

    39 Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S.246, 252 (1994) (quoting

    45U.S.C.151a(1988)).

    -13- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    14/28

    them;40 andminor disputes,whichincludecontroversiesoverthemeaningofan

    existingcollectivebargainingagreementinaparticularfactsituation.41 Claimsthatfall

    intoeithercategoryarepreempted. 42

    AlaskaAirlinescontends,asthesuperiorcourtconcluded,thatmanyof

    Lingleys proposed claims are minor disputes that must be resolved through the

    mechanismsprovidedbytheRLA, including thecollectivebargainingagreements three

    stepgrievanceprocess.ButweconcludethatLingleysclaimsmayhaveanindependent

    statelawbasisandthat,assoconstructed,donotrequireustointerpretthecollective

    bargainingagreement. Suchclaimswouldnotbepreempted: TheRLAdoesnot

    pre-empt causesof action to enforce rights that are independentof the [collective

    bargainingagreement].43 Pre-emptionofemploymentstandardswithinthe traditional

    policepowerofthe[s]tateshouldnotbelightlyinferred.44

    a. Theagediscriminationclaimisnotpreemptedbecauseit

    couldbebasedonstatestatute.

    AlaskaAirlinesdoesnotdisputethesuperiorcourtsconclusionthatthe

    RLAdoesnotpreemptLingleysagediscriminationclaim. Inthewrongfultermination

    context,astatelawclaimmaybepre-empted,notbecausetheRLAbroadlypre-emptsstate-lawclaimsbasedondischargeordiscipline,butbecausetheemployeesclaimwas

    40 Id. (alterationinoriginal)(quotingConsol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Execs.Assn,491U.S.299,302(1989)).

    41 Id. at253(quotingBhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Chi. River &Ind. R.R. Co.,353

    U.S.30,33(1957)).

    42 Id.at252-53.

    43 Id. at256.

    44 Id. at252(quotingFort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne,482U.S.1,21

    (1987)).

    -14- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    15/28

    firmlyrootedinabreachofthe[collectivebargainingagreement]itself.45 Bycontrast,

    whenanemployeesrightagainstwrongfulterminationderivesfromstatelawanddoes

    notdependonananalysisorinterpretationofthecollectivebargainingagreement,the

    statelawcauseofactionisnotpreempted.46 Suchclaimsmayturnon,forexample,the

    statelawdutynottofireanemployeeforretaliatoryreasonsorinviolationofotherstate

    publicpolicy.47

    Lingleysagediscriminationclaimhasanindependentstate lawbasisunder

    AS18.80.220,whichprohibitsanemployerfromdiscriminatingagainstanemployee

    becauseofthe[employees]age. 48 Thisstatutealsoprohibitsdiscriminatingagainst

    anemployeebecauseofhisorhersex,49 andwehaveheldthat theRLAdoesnot

    preemptawrongfulterminationclaimarisingunderthisstatutewhentheclaimalleges

    retaliationforreportingsexualharassment.50 ThesameistruewithrespecttoLingleys

    45 Id. at257(emphasisinoriginal);Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.,367P.3d

    1156,1160-61(Alaska2016).

    46 Bernard,367P.3dat1161-62(citingNorcon, Inc. v. Kotowski,971P.2d

    158,164-66(Alaska1999)). Compare Norris,512U.S.at257-58(holdingthataclaimisnotpreemptedbytheRLAwhenthecollectivebargainingagreementisnottheonly

    sourceof[theemployees]rightnottobedischargedwrongfully), with Andrews v.Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co.,406U.S.320,324(1972)(holdingthataclaimis

    preemptedbytheRLAwhenthecollectivebargainingagreementistheonlysourceof

    [theemployees]rightnottobedischarged).

    47 Bernard,367P.3dat1161-62;see also Norris,512U.S.at266(concluding

    thatawhistleblowerclaimbasedinstatelawwasnotpreemptedbytheRLA).

    48 AS18.80.220(a)(1).

    49 Id. Sexualharassmentofemployeesconstitutesdiscriminationonthebasis

    ofsex.French v. Jadon, Inc.,911P.2d20,28(Alaska1996).

    50 Bernard,367P.3dat1162.

    -15- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    16/28

    age discrimination claim. Like a claim for pretextual firing based on sexual

    discrimination,Lingleysagediscriminationclaimdoesnotturnonaninterpretationof

    the collective bargaining agreement; it has an independent state law basis in

    AS18.80.220andthereforeisnotpreempted.

    b. Theretaliation,whistleblower,andretributionclaimsare

    notpreemptediftheyareconstruedastortclaimsfor

    dischargeinviolationofpublicpolicy.

    Thesuperiorcourtconcluded,andAlaskaAirlinesconcedes,thattheRLA

    does not preemptLingleys retaliationclaimif itis construed asa tort claimfor

    wrongfuldischargeinviolationofpublicpolicy. Butthesuperiorcourt,likeAlaska

    Airlines,reachedtheoppositeconclusionwithrespecttoLingleyswhistleblowerand

    retributionclaims: Thoseclaims,unliketheretaliationclaim,arosefromthecollective

    bargainingagreementandcouldnotbeconsideredindependentofit.

    TheRLA,asnoted,doesnotpreemptawrongfulterminationclaimwhen

    theclaimisrootedinstatelawratherthanacollectivebargainingagreement. 51 This

    categoryofclaimsmayincludethoseallegingviolationsofstatelawprotectionsfor

    whistleblowers.52 Under Alaska law, a claim alleging wrongful termination for

    whistleblowingmaybeactionableasanindependentstatelawtortevenwhenthealleged

    misconductdoesnotviolatetheletterofany...[statutory]law[]. 53

    51 Norris,512U.S.at257.

    52 Id. at266(holdingthatclaimsthatterminationofemploymentviolated

    statelawandpublicpolicyclaimswhichrequiredonlypurelyfactualinquiryinto

    anyretaliatorymotiveoftheemployerwerenotpreemptedbytheRLA).

    53 Reust v. Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Inc.,127P.3d807,812-13&n.13

    (Alaska2005)(holdingthataretaliationclaimcouldbegroundedinpublicpolicytort);

    see also Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc.,93P.3d427,438(Alaska2004)(allowingtort(continued...)

    -16- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    17/28

    LingleyclaimsthatAlaskaAirlinesretaliatedagainstherforcriticizing

    managementsfailuretofollowcompanypoliciesandforreportingcompanymisconduct

    andviolationsoffederallaw. TheseclaimsmayberootedinAlaskaspublicpolicythat

    protects employees who serve as whistleblowers from retaliation. So construed,

    Lingleysretaliation,whistleblower,andretributionclaimswould turnonstate lawrather

    thanthecollectivebargainingagreement.54 Further,thoughwehaveexplainedthat

    wrongful termination claims based onwhistleblowing may express[] a breach of

    contracttheory55andthoughAlaskaAirlinespolices(incorporatedintothecollective

    bargainingagreement)explicitlyprotectemployeeswhoreportmisconductingoodfaith,

    thisnexuswiththeagreementdoesnotmeanLingleyswhistleblowerandretribution

    claimsturnonaninterpretationofthatagreement. Ratherwerecognize,forthepurpose

    of RLA preemption, that a collective bargaining agreement cannot alter[],

    circumscribe[],ordefine[]statelawprotectionsevenwhentheagreementappearsto

    offerprotections similar tothoseofstatelaw.56 Therefore to theextentLingleys

    retaliation,whistleblower, andretributionclaimsallegewrongfultermination inviolation

    (...continued)

    remedytoprotectemployeewhistleblowerswhofilesafetycomplaints).

    54 Reust,127P.3dat812-13&n.13;Kinzel,93P.3dat438.

    55 Reed v. Municipality of Anchorage,782P.2d1155,1158(Alaska1989).

    56 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.,367P.3d1156,1162(quotingNorcon, Inc.

    v. Kotowski,971P.2d158,167(Alaska1999));see also id.at1162n.35([T]hefactthataclaiminvolvesaviolationofaprivatelyenforcedpolicyisirrelevanttotheextentthat

    astatuteindependentlyfavorsthesamepolicy.);Norcon,971P.2dat167(Thefact

    thatthewhistleblowerclaiminthiscaseinvolvedtheviolationofaprivatelyenforcedsafetypolicy,ratherthanviolationsoflaw,isirrelevantinsofaraspublicpolicyfavors

    safeworkplaces.).

    -17- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    18/28

    ofstatelaworpublicpolicy,theclaimsareindependentofthecollectivebargaining

    agreementandnotpreemptedbytheRLA.

    c. Whethertheeconomicdiscriminationclaimispreempteddependsonitsconstruction.

    ThesuperiorcourtconcludedthatLingleyseconomicdiscriminationclaim

    waspreemptedbecausetheclaimarisesonlyunderthecollectivebargainingagreement

    andthuswasnotanindependentstatelawclaim.

    Lingleycontends thatAlaskaAirlinesfiredher becauseitwanted to

    replace[her],afifteen-yearveteranemployee,...withayoungerandneweremployee

    who would have little or no seniority and thuscould bepaid at a lower level of

    compensation. This claimhas two possible constructions: FirstLingleymaybe

    allegingthatAlaskaAirlinesbreached the impliedcovenantofgood faithand fair

    dealing. Thisclaimispreemptedasthesuperiorcourtconcluded. Anemployermay

    breach the implied covenantof good faith and fairdealingwhen it terminatesan

    employee to deprive her of compensation due under an employment contract.57

    Lingleysrighttocompensation,andthenatureofthatcompensation,isfirmlyrooted

    inheremploymentcontractbutnotnecessarilyinstatelaw. ButLingleyseconomicdiscriminationclaimalsomaybeallegingagediscrimination. Totheextentitdoes,the

    claimisnotpreemptedforthereasonsexplainedabove. 58 Therefore,onremand,the

    superiorcourtshouldallowLingleytoraiseandclarifytheeconomicdiscrimination

    claimasaclaimforagediscrimination.

    57 See Mitford v. de Lasala,666P.2d1000,1007(Alaska1983)([G]ood

    faithandfairdealinginthiscasewouldprohibitfiring[theemployee]forthepurposeofpreventinghimfrom[fromobtainingcompensationdueundercontract].).

    58 SeesupraIV.A.3.a.AlaskaStatute18.80.220(a)provides:[I]tisunlawfulfor...anemployer...todiscriminateagainstapersonincompensation...becauseof

    thepersonsage....

    -18- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    19/28

    4. Alternategroundsdonotjustifydenyingleavetoamend.

    a. ThemerepossibilityofFederalAviationActandAirline

    DeregulationActpreemptiondonotrequireustoaffirmonthesealternategrounds.

    Alaska Airlines contends thatLingleys whistleblower and retaliation

    claimsarepreemptedbytheFederalAviationActof1958(FAA) 59 andtheAirline

    DeregulationActof1978(ADA)60becausetheclaimsallegeviolationsoffederallaw

    orregulationrelatedtoair carrier safety. Lingleyscomplaint, however, isnot so

    specific. SheallegesonlythatAlaskaAirlinesterminatedherbecauseitsuspectedher

    ofreport[ing]thecompanysmisconductanditsviolationsofgovernmentrulesto

    federalofficialsandinretaliationforherperceivedwhistle-blowing...ofreporting

    thecompanysviolationsoffederallawsandregulations.Shedoesnotexplicitlyclaim

    pretextualfiringforreportingfederalsafetyviolations. And,totheextentsuchclaims

    canbeinferred,neithertheFAAnortheADAnecessarilypreemptstheclaims.

    TheFAAempoweredtheCivilAeronauticsBoardtoregulatetheinterstate

    airlineindustry,61 includingregulationofinterstateairfaresandactionagainstcertain

    deceptivetradepractices.62 Pursuanttothisauthority,theCivilAeronauticsBoardhas

    regulatedaircarrierroutes,rates,andservices.63 TheFAAdoesnot,however,expressly

    59 Pub.L.No.85-726,72Stat.731(codifiedasamendedinscatteredsections

    of49U.S.C.).

    60 Pub. L.No. 95-504,92 Stat. 1705 (codified asamended in scattered

    sectionsof49U.S.C.).

    61 Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg,134S.Ct.1422,1428(2014).

    62 Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,504U.S.374,378(1992).

    63 Northwest,134S.Ct.at1428.

    -19- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    20/28

    preemptstateregulation.64 Ratheritcontainsasavingprovisionthatpreserv[es]pre

    existingstatutoryandcommon-lawremedies. 65 ThereforeFAApreemption,ifany,

    mustbeimplied.66 Impliedpreemptionisfoundwhencompliancewithbothfederal

    andstatelawwouldbeimpossible(conflictpreemption)orwhenCongressleftnoroom

    forthe[s]tates(fieldpreemption).67

    The Ninth Circuit has concluded that the FAA preempts wrongful

    termination claims based on whistleblowing when the claims interfere with the

    pervasivelyregulatedareaofpilotqualificationsandmedicalstandardsforairmen68

    andthusindirectlychallengeaviationsafetydecisionsundertheguiseofstatelaw

    whistleblower claims.69 Claims that avoid such heavily regulated areas are not

    preemptedthisincludestheemploymentfield: Congresshasnotoccupiedthefield

    ofemploymentlawintheaviationcontext[,]and...theFAAdoesnotconfer...the

    exclusivepowertoregulateallemploymentmattersinvolvingairmen.70 Herethemere

    64 Morales,504U.S.at378.

    65 Northwest,134S.Ct.at1428.

    66 Ventress v. Japan Airlines,747F.3d716,720(9thCir.2014)(quotingMontalvo v. Spirit Airlines,508F.3d464,470(9thCir.2007)).

    67 Id.at720-21(quotingValle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting,732F.3d1006,1023

    (9thCir.2013)).

    68 Id.at721.

    69

    Id.at722.70 Id.;see also id. at722-23([W]eholdthatfederallawpreemptsstatelaw

    claimsthatencroachupon,supplement,oralterthefederallyoccupiedfieldofaviationsafetyandpresentanobstacletotheaccomplishmentofCongressslegislativegoalto

    createasingle,uniformsystemofregulatingthatfield.).

    -20- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    21/28

    possibilitythattheFAAmightpreemptLingleysbroadlystatedwhistleblowerand

    retaliationclaimsdoesnotjustifydenyingleavetoamend.

    Alaska Airlines also contends that the ADA preempts Lingleys

    whistleblowerandretaliationclaimsgiven theADAsbroad preemptive purpose.But,

    liketheFAA,theADAdoesnotnecessarilyreachsofar.TheADAseekstopromote

    efficiency,innovation,andlowprices71 throughmaximumrelianceoncompetitive

    marketforcesandonactualandpotentialcompetition. 72In2000,Congressamended

    theADAtoaddtheWhistleblowerProtectionProgram.73 Thisprogramprohibitsanair

    carrier from discharg[ing] an employee or otherwise discriminat[ing] against an

    employeewithrespecttocompensation,terms,conditions,orprivilegesofemployment

    because the employee . . . provided . . . to the employer or FederalGovernment

    informationrelatingtoanyviolationorallegedviolationofany...[federallawor

    regulation]relatingtoaircarriersafety.74 Theprogramprovidesadetailedprocedure

    foraddressingsuchgrievancesandauthorizestheU.S.DepartmentofLabortogrant

    relieftotheemployee,includingreinstatementandcompensatorydamages. 75

    TheADAalsocontainsapreemptionprovisionthatisdesignedtoensure

    statesdonotundofederalderegulation[oftheairlineindustry]withregulationoftheir

    71 49U.S.C.40101(a)(12)(A)(2012).

    72 Id. 40101(a)(6);see also Dans City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey,133S.Ct.

    1769,1775(2013)(discussingtheADAsaim).

    73 Pub. L. No. 106-181, 114 Stat. 145 (2000) (codified as amended at49U.S.C.42121(2012)).

    74 49U.S.C.42121(a).

    75 Id. 42121(b).

    -21- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    22/28

    own.76 Thepreemptionprovisionprovides: Statesmaynotenactorenforcealaw,

    regulation,orotherprovisionhavingtheforceandeffectoflawrelated to aprice,route,

    orserviceofanaircarrier.77 Thisprovisionhasbroadpre-emptivepurpose; it

    preemptsclaimsthathaveaconnectionwith,orreferenceto,airlinerates,routes,or

    services.78 Butitspreemptivereachislimited:AstheU.S.SupremeCourtexplained,

    [s]omestateactionsmayaffect[airlinefares]intootenuous,remote,orperipherala

    mannertohavepre-emptiveeffect. 79

    Notingthislimitation,theThirdandEleventhCircuitshaveheldthatthe

    ADAdoesnotpreemptsimpleemploymentdiscriminationclaim[s]...[basedon][an

    employees]undertakingofprotectedactivity,including,forexample,claimsalleging

    retaliationforreportingsafetyviolations.80 Suchclaims,thesecourtshaveexplained,are

    onlyincidentallyrelatedtoaircarrierservices;safetyisnotabasisonwhich

    airlinescompeteforpassengers;andtheWhistleblowerProtectionProgramsimply

    add[s]anadditionalremedyforplaintiffsseekingtoadvancearetaliatory[termination]

    claim.81

    76 Northwest, Inc. v.Ginsberg, 134S.Ct. 1422,1428 (2014)(quotingMoralesv. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,504U.S.374,378(1992)).

    77 49U.S.C.41713(b)(1)(emphasisadded).

    78 Northwest,134S.Ct.at1428(quotingMorales,504U.S.at383-84).

    79 Morales,504U.S.at390(alterationsinoriginal)(quotingShaw v. DeltaAir Lines, Inc.,463U.S.85,100n.21(1983)).

    80

    Branche v. Airtran Airways,

    Inc.,342F.3d1248,1259-60(11thCir.2003);see Gary v. Air Grp., Inc.,397F.3d183,186-87,189-90(3dCir.2005).

    81 Branche,342F.3dat1260,1264;see also Gary,397F.3dat188-90.

    We

    recognizethatthecircuitsaresplitinthisregard.TheEighthCircuit,forexample,held(continued...)

    -22- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    23/28

    Lingleys broadly stated whistleblower and retaliation claims may

    incidentallyaffectairlineefficiency,innovation,andlowprices, 82 and theADAs

    WhistleblowerProtectionProgrammayofferanavenueforredressingsomeofher

    grievances.83 ButgiventhelimitedscopeofADApreemption84

    andthebroadlystated

    natureofLingleysclaims,weconcludethatthemerepossibilityofpreemptionunder

    theADAdoesnotrequireustoaffirmonthisalternateground.

    b. Theagediscriminationclaimisnottimebarredifitis

    basedonstatelaw.

    AlaskaAirlinescontendsthatLingleysagediscriminationclaimistime

    barredtotheextenttheclaimisbasedonfederallaw. ItnotesthatthefederalAge

    Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 requires individuals alleging age

    discrimination to first file a discrimination claim with the Equal Employment

    OpportunityCommissionwithin300daysoftheallegedwrongfulactandthenwait

    60 days before bringing an action in court.85 While this is true, Lingleys age

    (...continued)

    thattheADApreemptedaflightattendantsclaimallegingretaliationforreportingviolationsoflawsrelatedtoworkingconditions. Botz v. Omni Air Intl,286F.3d488,

    498(8thCir.2002). ThecourtcitedtheADAsbroadpreemptivepurpose,theclaims

    incidental threat to airline services, and the Whistleblower Protection Programscomprehensiveprocedure foraddressinggrievances,whichfurthered[Congresss]goal

    ofensuring...theprice,availability,andefficiencyofairtransportation. Id. at494-98.

    82 See 49U.S.C.40101(a)(12)(A).

    83 See id. 42121;Gary,397F.3dat188-89;Branche,342F.3dat1263-64.

    84 See Morales,504U.S.at390.

    85 See 29U.S.C.626(d)(1)(2012);29C.F.R.1626.7(a)(2016).

    -23- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    24/28

    discriminationclaimhasanindependentbasisinstatelawunderAS18.80.220. 86 Tothe

    extentLingleysagediscriminationclaimisbasedonstatelaw,theclaimisnottime

    barred.87

    B. The Superior Court Did Not Err In Dismissing Lingleys FirstAmendedComplaint.

    Lingleysfirst amendedcomplaintallegedwrongful terminationandbreach

    ofthedutyofgoodfaithandfairdealingbutdidnotciteorsuggestanindependentstate

    lawbasis for the claims. Accordingly the superiorcourt concluded that theRLA

    preemptedtheclaimsbecausetheywererootedinthecollectivebargainingagreement.

    Weagree.

    InBernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. andNorcon, Inc. v. Kotowski,we

    distinguishedbetweenclaimsthatdependsolelyonthepartiescontractualrelationship

    andclaimsthatallegepretextualterminationbasedonretaliationanddependinparton

    thecontractualrelationship.88 Theformerclaims(thosebasedsolelyonthecontract)are

    86 See supra IV.A.3.a.

    87 Age discrimination claimsunderAS 18.80.220mustbebroughtwithintwo

    yearsoftheoffendingconduct. AS09.10.070(a).

    88 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.,367P.3d1156,1160-62(Alaska2016);

    Norcon, Inc. v. Kotowski,971P.2d158,165-68(Alaska1999)(holdingthatstatelawclaims are not preempted when they are neither founded on rights created by a

    [collectivebargainingagreement]nordependentontheanalysisorinterpretationofthe[collectivebargainingagreement]).Norcon involvedtheLaborManagementRelationsAct(LMRA)ratherthantheRLA,butliketheU.S.SupremeCourt,weapplythesame

    preemptionanalysistoboth. See Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris,512U.S.246,260(1994)(statingthattheRLApreemptionstandardisvirtuallyidenticaltothepre

    emptionstandardtheCourtemploysincasesinvolving...theLMRA).

    -24- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    25/28

    preemptedbut thelatter claimsgenerally arenot.89 Asweexplained, a collective

    bargainingagreementcannotalter[],circumscribe[],ordefine[]mattersgroundedin

    thestatespublicpolicy,suchastherighttoreportsafetyviolationsortherighttowork

    inanenvironmentfreeofsexualharassment.90 Becausethebargainingprocessdoesnot

    definesuchrights,theircontourscanbetracedwithoutanyreferencetotheagreement. 91

    LingleysfirstamendedcomplaintallegesthatAlaskaAirlinesrefusedto

    reinstateher,didnotadequatelynotifyheraboutthedischargeproceedings,andfailed

    toprovideaneutralforuminwhichtoaddresshergrievances. Unliketheclaimsinthe

    secondamendedcomplaint,theseclaimsarenotindependentclaimsbasedonpretextor

    retaliation. Instead theyare wrongful terminationclaimsdefinedbythe collective

    bargainingagreementtheonlysourceofLingleysrighttofor-causetermination.As

    suchtheRLApreemptstheclaimsinthefirstamendedcomplaint. 92 Howevertothe

    89 Bernard,367P.3dat1160-62;Norcon,971P.2dat166-68.

    90 Bernard,367P.3dat1162(quotingNorcon,971P.2dat167).

    91 Id.

    92 See Norris,512U.S.at257-58(quotingAndrews v. Louisville & Nashville

    R.R. Co.,406U.S.320,324(1972));Bernard at1160-61.

    Inafootnote,thesuperior

    courtalsoconcludedthattheclaimswereprecludedbecauseLingleyfailedtoexhausttheremediesavailableunder thecollectivebargainingagreement.

    Forthereasons

    explainedabove,wedisagree.

    See supra IV.A.2.

    -25- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    26/28

    extentthefirstamendedcomplaintallegesaclaimfordefamation,93 thatclaim,aswe

    explainbelow,canberevivedbyamotiontoamendsubjecttothesuperiorcourtsusual

    exerciseofdiscretion.94

    C. ThoughANumberOfLingleysClaimsWereNotTimely,LingleyShouldBeAllowedToRaiseThoseClaimsOnRemandSubjectTo

    TheSuperiorCourtsUsualExerciseOfDiscretion.

    AlaskaAirlinesandLingleydispute whetherLingleytimelyallegedclaims

    forintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress,defamation,spoliationofevidence,and

    primafacietort. UnderAlaskaCivilRule8,pleadingsaretobeliberallyconstrued,

    withthegoalbeingtoachievesubstantialjustice.95 Howeveraplaintiffstillmustset

    forthallegationsoffactconsistentwithsomeenforceablecauseofactiononanypossible

    theory96becauseadefendantmusthavefairnoticeoftheclaimandthegroundsupon

    which[thecomplaint]rests. 97

    93 Lingleysfirstamendedcomplaintseeksdamagesforlossofreputationandfortheemotionaldistressandhumiliationthatshehassufferedonaccountofthe

    defendantsmisconduct.

    94 Becauseweholdthat the superiorcourtshouldhavegranted leavetoamend,wedonotaddressLingleysargumentthatthesuperiorcourterredwhenit

    deniedhermotionforastaypendingdiscovery. OnremandLingleylikelywillhave

    opportunityfordiscovery.

    95 Lum v. Koles, 314 P.3d 546, 557 (Alaska 2013) (alteration omitted)(quotingGamble v. Northstore Pship,907P.2d477,482(Alaska1995)).

    96 Alaska Commercial Fishermens Meml in Juneau v. City & Borough of

    Juneau,357P.3d1172,1178n.25(Alaska2015)(quotingState, Dept of Health &Soc.Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs. v. Native Vill. of Curyung,151P.3d388,396(Alaska2006)).

    97 Id. at1178(quotingValdez Fisheries Dev. Assn, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline

    Serv. Co.,45P.3d657,673(Alaska2002)).

    -26- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    27/28

    Lingleydidnottimelyallegeclaimsforintentionalinflictionofemotional

    distress,defamation,spoliationofevidence,orprimafacietort. Asthesuperiorcourt

    concluded,theseclaimscannotbeinferredfromeitherofLingleyscomplaints. Rather

    shefirstraisedtheclaimsinheroppositiontoAlaskaAirlinesproposedfinaljudgment,

    afterthesuperiorcourthadalreadydismissedLingleyscomplaints. Neitherthefirst

    amendednorproposedsecondamendedcomplaintalleges,forexample,thatLingley

    suffered severe emotional distress or contends that Alaska Airlines engaged in

    outrageous conduct elements necessary to a claim for intentional infliction of

    emotional distress.98 Lingleys complaints also donot claim that Alaska Airlines

    negligently published a false, defamatory statement about her, as required for

    defamation.99 AndnothingineithercomplaintsuggeststhatAlaskaAirlinesmishandled

    evidenceinamannerthatmightgiverisetoatortclaimforspoliationofevidence;

    indeed,neithercomplaintevenmentionsaccesstoevidence .

    Thesuperiorcourtproperlydisregardedtheseclaimsthatwerenevertimely

    alleged. Intheprevioussection,however,wesuggestedthatLingleyshouldbeallowed

    toamendhercomplainttoclarifywhethersheintendedtoincludeaclaim fordefamation.

    Subjecttothesuperiorcourtsusualexerciseofdiscretioninsettingandenforcing

    pretrialdeadlines,100Lingleyshouldalsobeallowedtoamendhercomplainttostatethe

    claimsraisedinheroppositiontotheproposedfinaljudgment.

    98 See Beard v. Baum,796P.2d1344,1350(Alaska1990)(requiringahigher

    pleadingstandardforclaimsofintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress).

    99 See DeNardo v. Bax,147P.3d672,678(Alaska2006).

    100 Patterson v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.,347P.3d562,568(Alaska2015)(Wereviewthedenialofamotiontoamendapleadingforabuseofdiscretion.)(citing

    Krause v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough,229P.3d168,174(Alaska2010)).

    -27- 7104

  • 7/25/2019 Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)

    28/28

    V. CONCLUSION

    WeAFFIRMthesuperiorcourtorderdismissingLingleysfirstamended

    complaint. WeREVERSEtheorderdenyingleavetoamendandREMANDLingleys

    claimsforagediscrimination,economicdiscrimination,retaliation,whistleblowing,and

    retribution. Consistentwith thisopinion,Lingleyshouldbeallowedto amendher

    complainttoraiseadditionalclaimssubjecttothesuperiorcourtsusualexerciseof

    discretion.

    -28- 7104