Slade v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
336 P.3d 699
Alaska2014Background
- Slade sued the State of Alaska and state employee Al Gilbert under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging discrimination impairing contract rights.
- Alaska Attorney General certified Gilbert was acting within the scope of employment; superior court substituted the State as defendant under AS 09.50.258(c).
- The superior court dismissed Slade’s § 1981 claim against the State, reasoning § 1981 cannot be asserted against the State.
- On review, the Attorney General withdrew the scope-of-employment certification and the State moved to dismiss the review as moot.
- Slade invoked two mootness exceptions: voluntary cessation and public interest (capable of repetition/evading review/importance).
- The State replied with a clear policy statement that AS 09.50.258 is inapplicable to § 1981 claims and that the Attorney General will not certify individual state employees on § 1981 claims; the court found this sufficiently dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of § 1981 claim against State is barred by Supremacy Clause/Jury-trial concerns | Slade contended dismissal improperly relieved State of federal § 1981 liability and implicated constitutional rights | State contended substitution/mooting via withdrawal of certification made review unnecessary | Court did not decide merits; granted dismissal of review as moot based on State's binding policy withdrawal |
| Whether the voluntary cessation exception precludes mootness | Slade argued State could resume certification, so exception applies | State argued its unambiguous policy statement prevents recurrence | Court found State met heavy burden: conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur; voluntary cessation exception failed to save review |
| Whether public-interest exception (capable of repetition/evading review/importance) applies | Slade argued issue could recur and evade review and is of public importance | State argued its policy and publication of order prevent repetition/evading review | Court concluded issue will not be repeated or evade review; public-interest exception did not require continuation |
| Remedy for Slade's costs in this review | Slade sought fees and costs incurred in review | State did not oppose recovery tied to this review | Court awarded Slade full reasonable attorney fees and costs for the review proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman v. Or. Emp't Dep't, 509 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2007) (discusses scope of § 1981 and related procedural issues)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary cessation and mootness doctrine principles)
- City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (1982) (mootness and voluntary cessation rationale)
- United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (public interest in resolving legality of challenged practices informs mootness analysis)
- United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Exp. Ass'n, 393 U.S. 199 (1968) (factors for public-interest mootness exception)
- Fairbanks Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 1324 v. City of Fairbanks, 48 P.3d 1165 (Alaska 2002) (Alaska application of public-interest mootness factors)
- Kodiak Seafood Processors Ass'n v. State, 900 P.2d 1191 (Alaska 1995) (Alaska precedent on mootness and public interest)