Lentine v. State, 282 P.3d 369

Lentine was dismissed for allegedly filing a falsified timesheet to receive full pay for a week she did not work.
She claimed the dismissal violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing due to alleged bias, an unfair investigation, and disparate treatment.
An investigation led by state investigator Keane, with involvement from Hilderbrand and supervisor Thomson, resulted in Lentine’s termination alongside Robinson for similar misconduct.
The superior court found Lentine worked Minnesota hours only sparingly (at most 1–2 hours per day), found no proven bias by Thomson, and held the unfair labor practice claim untimely, awarding attorney’s fees to the State.
The trial court’s decision was affirmed on appeal, with emphasis on the lack of proof of bad faith, lack of unfair process, and timeliness issues; attorney’s fees were upheld as reasonable.
Robinson, who aided in amending Lentine’s timesheet, was also terminated; Thomson’s role was limited and not decisive in the dismissal decision.
Lentine argued for “comp time” for Minnesota, but the evidence did not establish a formal policy or comparable discipline for others.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the dismissal a breach of the implied covenant due to subjective bad faith?	Lentine alleges Thomson’s bias tainted the decision.	State argues Thomson’s role was insufficient to show bad faith.	No clear evidence of Thomson’s improper motive; no essential link to the dismissal.
Was the investigation conducted unfairly (objective breach)?	Investigation biased and incomplete, mischaracterized Minnesota work.	Investigation focused on actual reporting; any defects cured by evidence.	Investigation not unfair; focus and outcomes supported by record.
Did Lentine prove disparate treatment compared to similarly situated employees?	Other employees avoided discipline for similar or lesser infractions.	Different facts; others’ actions not the same misconduct; no showing of knowingly lenient treatment.	No proven disparate treatment for the same offense (falsifying timesheets).
Was Lentine’s unfair labor practice claim timely raised and thus waived?	Claim followed from contract grievance procedures.	Claim not raised in complaint or trial brief; raised generically during cross-exam and waived.	Untimely and waived; not raised in proper procedural posture.
Was the attorney’s fee award proper and not an abuse of discretion?	Court should abate under AS 09.60.010(e) and consider equitable factors.	Primary claim was breach of implied covenant; fee award reasonable and tied to Civil Rule 82.	No abuse; award reasonable and within court’s discretion.

Crowley v. State, Dept. of Health & Soc. Servs., 253 P.3d 1226 (Alaska 2011) (standard for showing subjective breach; supervisor’s bias not always imputed to employer)
Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 834 P.2d 1220 (Alaska 1992) (cat’s paw/causation considerations in employer liability)
Pitka v. Interior Reg’l Hous. Auth., 54 P.3d 785 (Alaska 2002) (review of procedural defects and their effect on outcomes)
Mitchell v. Teck Cominco Alaska, Inc., 193 P.3d 751 (Alaska 2008) (application of implied covenant; standards for proving fault)