Ace Delivery & Moving, Inc. v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, 350 P.3d 776

Wass, temporarily employed by Ace, alleged a hostile work environment based on derogatory remarks about race, religion, and national origin by Ace's owner.
The Alaska State Commission for Human Rights (the Commission) charged Ace with creating a hostile environment under AS 18.80.220(a)(1).
The Commission denied Ace's request for attorney’s fees and costs after an evidentiary hearing and an administrative law judge (ALJ) finding Ace did not subject Wass to a hostile environment.
Ace sought fees under AS 18.80.130(e) and under several federal and state fee statutes/regulations, asserting the employer-prevailing party rule and constitutional defenses.
The superior court affirmed the Commission's denial of fees, and Ace appeals to the Alaska Supreme Court.
The court reviews the Commission’s fee-discretion decision under AS 18.80.130(e) and related regulations de novo for legal conclusions and with a reasonable-basis standard for agency expertise.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AS 18.80.130(e) governs fee awards in Commission proceedings.	Ace argues the Commission may award fees under AS 18.80.130(e).	Wass argues the Commission lacks authority to award such fees or did so improperly.	AS 18.80.130(e) governs; no error in fee discretion.
Whether AS 09.60.010(c) applies to fee awards in this administrative proceeding.	Ace contends constitutional defenses yielded a fee entitlement under AS 09.60.010(c).	Wass contends this statute applies only to civil actions in state courts.	AS 09.60.010(c) does not apply; no fee entitlement under it.
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1988 authorizes attorney’s fees in this administrative action.	Ace relies on § 1988 to obtain fees for constitutional defenses.	Wass argues § 1988 applies only to actions to enforce § 1983 and not here.	§ 1988 does not authorize fees in this administrative proceeding.
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) supports attorney’s fees here.	Ace invokes § 2000e-5(k) to obtain fees.	Wass argues § 2000e-5(k) governs EEOC-era enforcement actions and is not applicable.	§ 2000e-5(k) does not apply; no fee award under it.
Whether Ace was entitled to fees by any other theory related to prevailing-party status.	Ace maintained it prevailed on constitutional defenses.	Wass counters Ace did not prevail on a constitutional claim and the Commission limited fees per policy.	No fee award under other statutes; no prevailing-party entitlement.

French v. Jadon, Inc., 911 P.2d 20 (Alaska 1996) (recognizes hostile environment standard under Alaska statute)
Hotel & Rest. Union Local 878 v. Alaska State Comm’n for Human Rights, 595 P.2d 653 (Alaska 1979) (limits on agency fee discretion consistent with statutory framework)
Pyramid Printing Co. v. Alaska State Comm’n for Human Rights, 153 P.3d 994 (Alaska 2007) (discretionary fee standards and agency scope clarified)
Roberts v. U. S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (factors for non-protected discriminatory conduct in constitutional analysis)
New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54 (1980) (federal-fee considerations in administrative contexts)
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412 (1978) (fee-shifting policy; frivolousness standard)