Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 39.90.100 (2026)
Persons protected
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 39.90.100. Persons protected.
(a) A public employer may not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because
(1) the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports to a public body or is about to report to a public body a matter of public concern; or
(2) the employee participates in a court action, an investigation, a hearing, or an inquiry held by a public body on a matter of public concern.
(b) A public employer may not disqualify a public employee or other person who reports a matter of public concern or participates in a proceeding connected with a matter of public concern before a public body or court, because of the report or participation, from eligibility to
(1) bid on contracts with the public employer;
(2) receive land under a law of the state or an ordinance of the municipality; or
(3) receive another right, privilege, or benefit.
(c) The provisions of AS 39.90.100 — 39.90.150 do not
(1) require an employer to compensate an employee for participation in a court action or in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry by a public body;
(2) prohibit an employer from compensating an employee for participation in a court action or in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry by a public body;
(3) authorize the disclosure of information that is legally required to be kept confidential; or
(4) diminish or impair the rights of an employee under a collective bargaining agreement.
(d) An employer shall post notices and use other appropriate means to inform employees of their protections and obligations under AS 39.90.100 — 39.90.150.
(a) A public employer may not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because
(1) the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports to a public body or is about to report to a public body a matter of public concern; or
(2) the employee participates in a court action, an investigation, a hearing, or an inquiry held by a public body on a matter of public concern.
(b) A public employer may not disqualify a public employee or other person who reports a matter of public concern or participates in a proceeding connected with a matter of public concern before a public body or court, because of the report or participation, from eligibility to
(1) bid on contracts with the public employer;
(2) receive land under a law of the state or an ordinance of the municipality; or
(3) receive another right, privilege, or benefit.
(c) The provisions of AS 39.90.100 — 39.90.150 do not
(1) require an employer to compensate an employee for participation in a court action or in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry by a public body;
(2) prohibit an employer from compensating an employee for participation in a court action or in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry by a public body;
(3) authorize the disclosure of information that is legally required to be kept confidential; or
(4) diminish or impair the rights of an employee under a collective bargaining agreement.
(d) An employer shall post notices and use other appropriate means to inform employees of their protections and obligations under AS 39.90.100 — 39.90.150.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Hammond v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, 107 P.3d 871 (Alaska 2005).
Hammond v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, 107 P.3d 871 (Alaska 2005). “" [5] AS 39.90.100(a) provides in relevant part that: [a] public employer may not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because (1) the employee .”
Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Salvucci, 950 P.2d 1116 (Alaska 1997). “AS 39.90.100. AHFC concedes for the purposes of this appeal that Salvucci meets all elements required to bring a claim under the Alaska Whistleblower Act except the requirement to report to a "public body.”
Anderson v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 234 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2010). “2d 1116, 1121-22 (Alaska 1997) (examining legislative history to determine whether "reports to a public body" in AS 39.90.100 included reports to an employee's own employer).”
Lincoln v. Interior Reg'l Hous. Auth., 30 P.3d 582 (Alaska 2001). “100 provides that: (a) A public employer may not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because (1) the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the…”
Plumber v. Univ. of Alaska Anchorage, 936 P.2d 163 (Alaska 1997). “In the federal court case Plumber alleged in relevant part that the poor evaluation was in retaliation for her lawsuit and therefore violated the Alaska Whistleblower Act, AS 39.90.100(a). In her grievance, which appeal is presently before us, Plumber claimed that the motivation…”
Okpik v. City of Barrow, 230 P.3d 672 (Alaska 2010). “The superior court correctly found that this provision did not apply to Okpik because Barrow's personnel policy had no "reporting up” requirement.”
City of Fairbanks v. Rice, 20 P.3d 1097 (Alaska 2000). “AS 39.90.100 - 150. 2 . See U.S. Const. amend.”
Appeal of Bio Energy Corp., 607 A.2d 606 (N.H. 1992). “See Alaska Stat. § 39.90.100 (a)(1) (Supp. 1991) (to a public body); Fla.”
Sayer v. Bashaw, 214 P.3d 363 (Alaska 2009). “AS 39.90.100 ef seq. Bashaw later filed amended complaints containing additional allegations, including an allegation that Dr.”
State of Alaska, DFCS, Off. of Child.'s Servs. v. Brett Lane, 542 P.3d 1124 (Alaska 2024). “6 “To prove constructive discharge, employees must show that reasonable persons in their position would have felt compelled to resign.” 7 “To prevail on a wrongful termination claim ‘an employee must prove: (1) that the employee was discharged by [his or her] employer and (2)…”
Methvin v. Bartholomew, 971 P.2d 151 (Alaska 1998). “AS 39.90.100-, 150. 9 . See State v. Haley, 687 P.”
Boone (D. Alaska 2026). “COUNT V – VIOLATION OF ALASKA WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT (AS § 39.90.100) Count V alleges that Defendants violated the Alaska Whistleblower Protection Act, AS § 39.”
— Alaska Stat. § 39.90.100(a) — 6 cases
Hammond v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, 107 P.3d 871 (Alaska 2005). “" [5] AS 39.90.100(a) provides in relevant part that: [a] public employer may not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because (1) the employee .”
Plumber v. Univ. of Alaska Anchorage, 936 P.2d 163 (Alaska 1997). “In the federal court case Plumber alleged in relevant part that the poor evaluation was in retaliation for her lawsuit and therefore violated the Alaska Whistleblower Act, AS 39.90.100(a). In her grievance, which appeal is presently before us, Plumber claimed that the motivation…”
Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Salvucci, 950 P.2d 1116 (Alaska 1997). “AS 39.90.100. AHFC concedes for the purposes of this appeal that Salvucci meets all elements required to bring a claim under the Alaska Whistleblower Act except the requirement to report to a "public body.”
State of Alaska, DFCS, Off. of Child.'s Servs. v. Brett Lane, 542 P.3d 1124 (Alaska 2024). “6 “To prove constructive discharge, employees must show that reasonable persons in their position would have felt compelled to resign.” 7 “To prevail on a wrongful termination claim ‘an employee must prove: (1) that the employee was discharged by [his or her] employer and (2)…”
Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Salvucci, 950 P.2d 1106 (Alaska 1997).
— Alaska Stat. § 39.90.100(a)(1) — 2 cases
State of Alaska, DFCS, Off. of Child.'s Servs. v. Brett Lane, 542 P.3d 1124 (Alaska 2024). “6 “To prove constructive discharge, employees must show that reasonable persons in their position would have felt compelled to resign.” 7 “To prevail on a wrongful termination claim ‘an employee must prove: (1) that the employee was discharged by [his or her] employer and (2)…”
Emily Roseberry v. North Slope Borough Sch. Dist. & North Slope Borough Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. (Alaska 2025).
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.