Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 18.60.089 (2026)
Prohibition against retribution
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 18.60.089. Prohibition against retribution.
(a) A person may not discharge or discriminate against an employee because the employee has filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding related to the enforcement of occupational safety and health standards, or has testified or is expected to testify in a proceeding relating to occupational safety and health or because an employee has exercised personally or on behalf of others a right afforded under AS 18.60.010 — 18.60.105.
(b) An employee who has been discharged or discriminated against by a person in violation of this section may, within 30 days after the violation occurs, file a complaint with the commissioner alleging the discrimination. Upon receipt of the complaint, the commissioner shall investigate the matter as the commissioner considers appropriate. If, upon investigation, the commissioner determines that this section has been violated, the commissioner shall request the attorney general to bring an action in the superior court against the violator. The superior court has jurisdiction to restrain violations of (a) of this section and to order all appropriate relief, including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to the employee's former position with back pay.
(c) Within 90 days of the receipt of a complaint filed under this section, the commissioner shall notify the complainant of the determination under (b) of this section.
(a) A person may not discharge or discriminate against an employee because the employee has filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding related to the enforcement of occupational safety and health standards, or has testified or is expected to testify in a proceeding relating to occupational safety and health or because an employee has exercised personally or on behalf of others a right afforded under AS 18.60.010 — 18.60.105.
(b) An employee who has been discharged or discriminated against by a person in violation of this section may, within 30 days after the violation occurs, file a complaint with the commissioner alleging the discrimination. Upon receipt of the complaint, the commissioner shall investigate the matter as the commissioner considers appropriate. If, upon investigation, the commissioner determines that this section has been violated, the commissioner shall request the attorney general to bring an action in the superior court against the violator. The superior court has jurisdiction to restrain violations of (a) of this section and to order all appropriate relief, including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to the employee's former position with back pay.
(c) Within 90 days of the receipt of a complaint filed under this section, the commissioner shall notify the complainant of the determination under (b) of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1989–2005 · leading case: Reed v. Mun. of Anchorage, 782 P.2d 1155 (Alaska 1989).
Reed v. Mun. of Anchorage, 782 P.2d 1155 (Alaska 1989). “This appeal raises the issue of whether the remedies for retaliatory discharge under the state “whistle blowing” statute, AS 18.60.089, are exclusive. We hold that they are not.”
Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc., 93 P.3d 427 (Alaska 2004). “In reaching our conclusion that AS 18.60.089 did not preclude a suit for retaliatory discharge we noted that our conclusion was similar to the conclusion reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Cerracchio v.”
Reust v. Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Inc., 127 P.3d 807 (Alaska 2005). “) [10] AS 18.60.089(a) provides: "A person may not discharge or discriminate against an employee because the employee has .”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.60.089(a) — 2 cases
Reust v. Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Inc., 127 P.3d 807 (Alaska 2005). “) [10] AS 18.60.089(a) provides: "A person may not discharge or discriminate against an employee because the employee has .”
Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc., 93 P.3d 427 (Alaska 2004). “In reaching our conclusion that AS 18.60.089 did not preclude a suit for retaliatory discharge we noted that our conclusion was similar to the conclusion reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Cerracchio v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.