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