Grimmett v. University of Alaska
303 P.3d 482
Alaska2013Background
- Taylor and Grimmett were University of Alaska employees who received nonretention notices; Taylor was a for-cause employee and Grimmett faced both for-cause termination and nonretention.
- Superior Court held Taylor entitled to a pre-termination hearing; remanded for backpay scope.
- Superior Court upheld Grimmett’s nonretention but set aside his for-cause termination due to the covenant issue; remanded pay questions.
- The Alaska Supreme Court consolidated the appeals, reviewing due process, layoff/nonretention boundaries, and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- Regents’ Policy 04.07.100 and University Regulation 04.01.050/04.07.100 govern nonretention and for-cause termination; nonretention is not clearly limited to layoff and may not be used for performance-based dismissals.
- Court’s ultimate holdings: Taylor’s due process rights were violated by nonretention without a hearing; Grimmett’s nonretention was improper and his for-cause termination was upheld as justified; remands ordered for backpay/pay considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did nonretention without a hearing violate due process for Taylor? | Taylor had for-cause status and a continued-employment expectation. | Nonretention is a permissible alternative to termination and may occur without a hearing. | Yes; due process was violated; reversal and remand for backpay. |
| Can nonretention be used for performance-based dismissal? | Nonretention should not be used to discharge for performance issues. | Nonretention includes layoff/financial exigency and may apply beyond performance grounds. | Nonretention may not be used for performance-based dismissals; Taylor’s case remanded for backpay scope. |
| Was Grimmett improperly nonretained and/or was his for-cause termination proper under the covenant of good faith and fair dealing? | Nonretention violated Grimmett’s due process; for-cause termination may be improper. | Grimmett had notice of prohibited self-ticketing and the termination was substantively justified. | Nonretention violated due process; however, the University’s for-cause termination was ultimately upheld; pay remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chijide v. Maniilaq Ass'n of Kotzebue, 972 P.2d 167 (Alaska 1999) (due process; for-cause employment context)
- City of North Pole v. Zabek, 934 P.2d 1292 (Alaska 1997) (at-will vs for-cause employment distinctions; due process)
- Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 834 P.2d 1220 (Alaska 1992) (covenant of good faith and fair dealing; notice and fairness)
- Odum v. Univ. of Alaska, Anchorage, 845 P.2d 432 (Alaska 1993) (due process in employment terminations)
- Casey v. City of Fairbanks, 670 P.2d 1133 (Alaska 1983) (property interest in continued employment; hearing rights)
- Regents’ Policy v. Tesoro Alaska Co., 178 P.3d 1159 (Alaska 2008) (regulatory interpretation and due process)
- Stanfill v. City of Fairbanks, 659 P.2d 579 (Alaska 1983) (non-discredit/Layoff-like rationale in governance)
- Moore v. State, Dep’t of Transp. and Pub. Facilities, 875 P.2d 765 (Alaska 1994) (non-discredit and layoff concepts in state employment)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (pre-termination due process requirement)