Boyko v. Anchorage School District
268 P.3d 1097
Alaska2012Background
- Boyko, an Anchorage School District teacher, signed a last chance agreement after a drunken incident and alcohol treatment history.
- She resigned in lieu of termination following administrative proceedings triggered by noncompliance with the agreement.
- She alleged the district breached the resignation agreement by promising no negative information and by making comments to third parties.
- The district sought summary judgment on multiple theories, including statutory immunity, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and interference with prospective contractual relations.
- The superior court granted immunity on the disclosure claim and summary judgment on other counts; Boyko appealed seeking reversal on those rulings, plus the discrimination claim under AHRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maker's comments breached the resignation agreement. | Boyko argues comments violated the no-negative-information promise. | District contends no negative statements were made. | Genuine issue of material fact about breach; remand for trial. |
| Whether the district waived immunity under AS 09.65.160. | Waiver implied by resignation agreement statements. | Immunity applies regardless; no waiver. | Genuine issue of material fact on implied waiver; remand. |
| Whether the district's disclosures were pretextual discrimination (AHRA claim). | Discharge framed as pretext for disability; questioned reasons. | Reasons tied to last chance agreement compliance; legitimate. | Summary judgment affirmed for discrimination claim. |
| Whether AS 09.65.160 immunity applies to alleged disclosures to third parties. | Waiver or non-applicability with respect to the resignation context. | Statutory immunity bars liability. | Immunity issue is mixed; remanded for factual determinations. |
| Whether the resignation agreement itself constitutes a contract and its terms. | Agreement bound district to favorable terms and non-disclosure. | No contract or terms beyond non-disclosure; immunity governs third-party disclosures. | Remand to determine contract formation and performance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nielson v. Benton, 903 P.2d 1049 (Alaska 1995) (cited for standard on waiver/implied rights)
- Wright v. State, 824 P.2d 718 (Alaska 1992) (statutory interpretation considerations)
- Rockstad v. Erikson, 113 P.3d 1215 (Alaska 2005) (governmental immunity/affect on contract claims)
- Clemensen v. Providence Alaska Med. Ctr., 203 P.3d 1148 (Alaska 2009) (AHRA/discrimination framework and burden shifting)
- Perkins v. Doyon Universal Servs., LLC, 151 P.3d 413 (Alaska 2006) (disability discrimination standards under AHRA)
- Haroldsen v. OMNI Enters., Inc., 901 P.2d 426 (Alaska 1995) (waiver/implied rights and contract principles)
- Shea v. State, Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits, 204 P.3d 1023 (Alaska 2009) (statutory immunity considerations in employment disclosures)