Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 18.80.120 (2026)
Hearing
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 18.80.120. Hearing.
(a) If no agreement is reached under AS 18.80.110 and the executive director determines to refer the complaint for hearing, the executive director shall issue an accusation based on the investigator's determination of substantial evidence and serve the person charged in the accusation and the complainant with notice of the referral and a copy of the accusation. The executive director's decision to refer the complaint to hearing is not reviewable by the commission under this chapter. The location of the hearing is the commission office unless the commission designates another location. The executive director, or the executive director's designee, shall present the case in support of the accusation before the commission. The person charged in the accusation may file a written answer and may appear at the hearing, with or without counsel, and submit evidence.
(b) The commission shall request the chief administrative law judge to appoint, under AS 44.64.020, an administrative law judge employed or retained by the office of administrative hearings to preside over a hearing conducted under this section. AS 44.64.040 — 44.64.055, 44.64.070 — 44.64.200, and the procedures in AS 44.62.330 — 44.62.630 (Administrative Procedure Act) apply to the hearing except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(c) An accusation may be reasonably and fairly amended by the commission. An amendment to name a different discriminatory practice must be supported by substantial evidence, and the discriminatory practice must be referred for conference, conciliation, and persuasion as provided in AS 18.80.110, before a hearing may proceed.
(d) In a hearing on an accusation, each element of an accusation or defense must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
(e) At any time after the issuance of an accusation, the executive director or the person charged in the accusation may petition for a summary decision on the accusation. The commission shall grant a petition if, after a reasonable opportunity for discovery, the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the petitioner is entitled to an order under AS 18.80.130 as a matter of law.
(a) If no agreement is reached under AS 18.80.110 and the executive director determines to refer the complaint for hearing, the executive director shall issue an accusation based on the investigator's determination of substantial evidence and serve the person charged in the accusation and the complainant with notice of the referral and a copy of the accusation. The executive director's decision to refer the complaint to hearing is not reviewable by the commission under this chapter. The location of the hearing is the commission office unless the commission designates another location. The executive director, or the executive director's designee, shall present the case in support of the accusation before the commission. The person charged in the accusation may file a written answer and may appear at the hearing, with or without counsel, and submit evidence.
(b) The commission shall request the chief administrative law judge to appoint, under AS 44.64.020, an administrative law judge employed or retained by the office of administrative hearings to preside over a hearing conducted under this section. AS 44.64.040 — 44.64.055, 44.64.070 — 44.64.200, and the procedures in AS 44.62.330 — 44.62.630 (Administrative Procedure Act) apply to the hearing except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(c) An accusation may be reasonably and fairly amended by the commission. An amendment to name a different discriminatory practice must be supported by substantial evidence, and the discriminatory practice must be referred for conference, conciliation, and persuasion as provided in AS 18.80.110, before a hearing may proceed.
(d) In a hearing on an accusation, each element of an accusation or defense must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
(e) At any time after the issuance of an accusation, the executive director or the person charged in the accusation may petition for a summary decision on the accusation. The commission shall grant a petition if, after a reasonable opportunity for discovery, the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the petitioner is entitled to an order under AS 18.80.130 as a matter of law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1976–2020 · leading case: State, Dep't of Fish & Game, Sport Fish Div. v. Meyer, 906 P.2d 1365 (Alaska 1995).
State, Dep't of Fish & Game, Sport Fish Div. v. Meyer, 906 P.2d 1365 (Alaska 1995). “AS 18.80.120. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission is required to enter an order.”
McDaniel v. Cory, 631 P.2d 82 (Alaska 1981). “[7] On December 17, 1976, the hearing examiner held a hearing pursuant to AS 18.80.120. [8] *85 Prior to the hearing, the Disco Management moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Commission had no jurisdiction to hold a hearing since conciliation had been effected.”
Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights v. Anderson, 426 P.3d 956 (Alaska 2018). “”6 “The records of investigation and information obtained by the [C]ommission during an investigation .”
Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights v. Yellow Cab, 611 P.2d 487 (Alaska 1980). “[3] Mayer had worked for two other cab companies in Fairbanks.”
Beegan v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, 195 P.3d 134 (Alaska 2008). “AS 18.80.120. 16 . Ex rel. suits are "typically brought by the government upon the application of a private party .”
Toliver v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights, 279 P.3d 619 (Alaska 2012). “The agreement is binding and enforceable under this chapter as an order of the commission.”
Raad v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights, 86 P.3d 899 (Alaska 2004). “The executive director of the commission certified that attempts to eliminate the alleged discrimination by conference, conciliation, or persuasion failed, and that a hearing was required to hear the merits of the case under AS 18.80.120. A hearing on Raad’s complaint was held…”
Johnson v. Alaska State Dep't of Fish & Game, 836 P.2d 896 (Alaska 1991). “The statute then states: If within the [deferral] period allowed the commission conducts a hearing and reaches a decision under AS 18.80.120 and 18.80.130, the decision of the commission is binding on the parties to the court action as to all issues resolved in the hearing but…”
Hotel, Motel, Restaurant, Constr. Camp Employees & Bartenders Union Local 879 v. Thomas, 551 P.2d 942 (Alaska 1976). “AS 18.80.120. 10 . ,AS 18.80.130. 11 . Thus, in Loomis Electronic Protection, Inc.”
Hotel & Restaurant Union Local 878 v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights, 595 P.2d 653 (Alaska 1979). “2 AS 18.80.120, entitled “Hearing,” provides for a hearing before the Commission if informal efforts by the executive director to eliminate alleged discrimination are unsuccessful.”
Rodriguez v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights, 354 P.3d 380 (Alaska 2015). “AS 18.80.120(a). If the Commission's investigation fails to reveal substantial evidence of discrimination the Commission shall dismiss the complaint.”
Grundberg v. Alaska State Commc'n for Human Rights, 333 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2014). “112(b)(4), which provides: "At any time before the issuance of an accusation under AS 18.80.120, the executive director may dismiss without prejudice a complaint if the executive director determines that .”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.80.120(a) — 3 cases
Toliver v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights, 279 P.3d 619 (Alaska 2012). “The agreement is binding and enforceable under this chapter as an order of the commission.”
Rodriguez v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights, 354 P.3d 380 (Alaska 2015). “AS 18.80.120(a). If the Commission's investigation fails to reveal substantial evidence of discrimination the Commission shall dismiss the complaint.”
Russell Baker v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights & Fed. Express Corp., 476 P.3d 1120 (Alaska 2020).
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.