Mills v. Hankla
2013 Alas. LEXIS 37
| Alaska | 2013Background
- In 2008 the City of Hoonah promoted Jefferson Hankla to police chief; the appointment violated city code but the code was amended and Hankla was reappointed.
- Lt. Mills and three dispatchers alleged under multiple theories that Hankla and the City harassed them and violated wage laws; claims included hostile work environment, negligent hiring/training/retention, and wrongful termination.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for Hankla and the City on most claims, denied sanctions for spoliation, and later excluded certain expert testimony and unpleaded claims.
- The court later reconsidered Welsh’s harassment claim and granted summary judgment against her on that specific claim, while permitting possible amendment of pleadings for related theories.
- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed on Welsh/Mills/McLaughlin hostile environment claims against the City, reversed the dismissal of Welsh’s retaliation/constructive discharge issues to the extent pleaded, vacated the attorney’s fees award, and remanded for further proceedings; it affirmed dismissal of the negligent hiring claim and Mills’ retaliation claim, and left open amendment opportunities for other theories on remand.
- The case culminates in remand for pleadings, allocation of fees, and re-evaluation of punitive discovery sanctions and certain AHRA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in denying discovery sanctions for spoliation | Mills asserted destruction or withholding of Hankla’s personnel file and Skaflestad’s file impeded their case | No clear destruction; files were produced; sanctions inappropriate | No abuse of discretion; sanctions denied |
| Whether Welsh/Mills/McLaughlin AHRA claims against Hankla/City survive summary judgment | Supervisor status or vicarious liability makes City liable for harassment | AHRA liability limited to employers; individual Hankla not an employer; some claims barred | Welsh AHRA claim against City reversed on supervisor-status issue; genuine issues remain for Mills/McLaughlin; Court remands to address immunity and potential amendment |
| Whether Mills’ wrongful termination claim against the City survives summary judgment | Campaign of harassment created constructive discharge and breach of covenant | No material factual dispute; no constructive discharge shown | Genuine issues of material fact; summary judgment reversed and remand ordered |
| Whether negligent hiring against the City is barred by discretionary-function immunity | City’s hiring decision violated duties; not immunized | Hiring decision is discretionary; immunity applies absent malice | Affirmed dismissal; discretionary-function immunity applies |
| Attorney’s fees and remedies on remand | Fees should reflect prevailing party status and allocation | Fees improper to be joint/separate without allocation | Fees vacated; remand to allocate; Rule 68 offers status undecided at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Cameron v. Beard, 864 P.2d 538 (Alaska 1994) (constructive discharge evidence; covenant of good faith and fair dealing)
- Finch v. Greatland Foods, Inc., 21 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2001) (sustained harassment can create triable breach of covenant)
- VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906 (Alaska 1999) (broader supervisor liability—apparent authority and employer’s role)
- French v. Jadon, Inc., 911 P.2d 20 (Alaska 1996) (AHRA interpretation; hostile environment standard)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (supervisor liability and defense of remedial action)
- Ellison v. Plumbers & Steam Fitters Union Local 375, 118 P.3d 1070 (Alaska 2005) (aiding and abetting liability interpreted)
- Doubleday v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm’n, 238 P.3d 100 (Alaska 2010) (spoliation evidentiary presumption standards)
- Okpik v. City of Barrow, 230 P.3d 672 (Alaska 2010) (constructive discharge and covenant analysis)