Todeschi v. Sumitomo Metal Mining Pogo, LLC, 394 P.3d 562

Background

Nathaniel Todeschi worked as an underground mine supervisor at Pogo Mine and had a history of work-related back injuries and several surgeries, including a 2009 fusion; he returned to supervision but refused to operate Kubota tractors due to pain and asked for alternate transportation or accommodation.
Sumitomo (operator of Pogo Mine) sent Todeschi for an independent medical exam by Dr. James, who imposed lifting and driving restrictions and recommended a truck as an accommodation; Sumitomo terminated Todeschi the same day citing an inability to perform the job due to restrictions.
Todeschi alleged disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under Alaska law, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and retaliation/ discrimination for pursuing a workers’ compensation claim; a jury returned a special verdict: no disability discrimination, no failure to accommodate, no retaliation for workers’ comp pursuit, but yes for breach of the covenant, awarding $215,000 in past lost income.
Key evidentiary disputes included (1) whether Todeschi had a disability as a matter of law, (2) whether missing attorney billing/phone/email records warranted a burden-shifting or adverse-inference instruction, and (3) whether a jury instruction improperly suggested Sumitomo was not responsible for pre-2009 conduct by a predecessor employee.
The superior court denied directed verdict/JNOV on the disability issue, refused spoliation burden-shifting and the proposed adverse-inference instruction (but permitted counsel to argue the missing-records inference), and gave the disputed instruction about pre-2009 conduct; the Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should have directed a verdict that Todeschi had a disability	Todeschi argued Dr. James’s restrictions showed a substantial limitation on the major life activity of working, so disability was established as a matter of law	Sumitomo pointed to Todeschi’s earlier full medical release, disputed breadth of lifting requirement, and argued tractor-driving limits didn’t bar a class of jobs	Denied: Enough conflicting evidence existed that a reasonable jury could find no disability; directed verdict not warranted
Whether the jury verdict finding breach of covenant but no disability discrimination was inconsistent (JNOV)	Todeschi argued breach necessarily meant disability discrimination and thus verdicts were irreconcilable	Sumitomo argued breach covers unfair/bad-faith conduct distinct from statutory discrimination and jury could find breach without meeting statutory elements	Denied: Jury instructions allowed harmonization; jury could find unfair conduct without concluding statutory discrimination or could find inability to perform essential job functions despite a disability
Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing burden-shifting or adverse-inference spoliation remedies for missing attorney records	Todeschi sought burden-shifting or an adverse-inference instruction, claiming missing billing/phone/email records hindered his prima facie case	Sumitomo produced many communications, explained why some records were missing, and the court found plaintiff failed to show missing records sufficiently prejudiced his prima facie case	Denied: Burden-shifting not warranted because plaintiff didn’t show missing records sufficiently hindered proof; refusal of permissive adverse-inference instruction not an abuse and any error was harmless because counsel argued the spoliation theme and instructions allowed skepticism of weak evidence
Whether Jury Instruction 12 (precluding holding Sumitomo responsible for pre-2009 conduct) improperly introduced an unpled statute-of-limitations defense	Todeschi argued the instruction nullified the stipulated identity of the predecessor employer and prevented use of 2008 conduct as evidence of motive for 2010 firing	Sumitomo argued the instruction only limited liability for pre-2009 acts while still allowing the jury to consider them as background for 2010 conduct	Affirmed: Any ambiguity did not probably affect the verdict; instruction read with others still permitted the jury to consider Witt’s 2008 conduct as context for 2010 termination

Key Cases Cited

Sweet v. Sisters of Providence in Wash., 895 P.2d 484 (Alaska 1995) (establishes burden-shifting presumption framework for negligent spoliation when missing records sufficiently hinder a plaintiff and are lost through defendant fault)
Thorne v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 774 P.2d 1326 (Alaska 1989) (applies due-process analysis and orders presumption where government negligently destroyed critical evidence and preservation burden was slight)
Miller v. Phillips, 959 P.2d 1247 (Alaska 1998) (refuses burden-shifting spoliation instruction where adequacy of records was disputed and not uncontroversially lost)
Zaverl v. Hanley, 64 P.3d 809 (Alaska 2003) (no presumption where delayed records did not plausibly prejudice plaintiff’s prima facie case)