Conitz v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights
325 P.3d 501
Alaska2014Background
- Gregg Conitz alleged Teck Alaska Incorporated discriminated against him in promotions due to a shareholder-prise preference for NANA shareholders.
- Teck operates the Red Dog Mine with a NANA-backed employment preference; Conitz, white and a regional minority, claims the policy is racially discriminatory.
- Conitz pursued multiple state and federal actions—two initial complaints in 2006 and additional claims in 2007–2008—alleging failures to promote in 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008.
- Federal courts ruled Conitz was not qualified for the promoted positions, and the Ninth Circuit limited its ruling to qualification without resolving the legality of the shareholder preference.
- The Alaska Commission for Human Rights dismissed Conitz’s administrative claims; the superior court later dismissed his appeal as moot based on res judicata, because the federal decisions had resolved the merits.
- Conitz appeals, challenging the application of res judicata, the legality of the shareholder preference, and whether an adversarial hearing was required; the Supreme Court affirms the superior court’s mootness/res judicata ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Conitz’s appeal was timely. | Conitz argues timely filing under appellate rules. | Teck and the Commission contend the appeal was untimely. | Yes, but the court relaxes rules to hear merits. |
| Whether res judicata bars further pursuit on remand. | Conitz contends remand could allow new adjudication. | Res judicata precludes relitigation of decided claims. | Res judicata bars further pursuit; mootness ensues. |
| Whether the legality of Teck’s shareholder preference should be ruled on. | Policy nature warrants judicial ruling despite personal impact. | This is an advisory question; not appropriate to decide. | Court declines to rule on legality of the policy. |
| Whether Conitz was entitled to an adversarial hearing before the Commission. | Renders issue moot in light of other holdings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Raad v. Alaska State Comm’n for Human Rights, 86 P.3d 899 (Alaska 2004) (timeliness and standards for administrative review; late filings interpreted)
- Weber v. State, 166 P.3d 899 (Alaska 2007) (substitution of judgment and standard of review; res judicata considerations)
- Alaska Wildlife Alliance v. State, 74 P.3d 201 (Alaska 2003) (administrative review and substantial evidence standard)
- Beegan v. State, Dept. of Transportation & Public Facilities, 195 P.3d 134 (Alaska 2008) (full and fair opportunity to litigate; res judicata applicability)
- Patterson v. Infinity Ins. Co., 303 P.3d 483 (Alaska 2013) (res judicata precludes relitigating previously decided claims)