Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 39.90.110 (2026)
Limitation to protections
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 39.90.110. Limitation to protections.
(a) A person is not entitled to the protections under AS 39.90.100 — 39.90.150 unless the person
(1) reasonably believes that the information reported is or is about to become a matter of public concern; and
(2) reports the information in good faith.
(b) A person is entitled to the protections under AS 39.90.100 — 39.90.150 only if the matter of public concern
(1) is not the result of conduct by the person seeking protection; or
(2) is the result of conduct by the person that was required by the person's employer.
(c) As part of its written personnel policy, a public employer may require that, before an employee initiates a report on a matter of public concern under AS 39.90.100, the employee shall submit a written report concerning the matter to the employer. However, the employee is not required to submit a report if the employee
(1) reasonably believes that reports to the employer will not result in prompt action to remedy the matter of public concern;
(2) believes with reasonable certainty that the activity, policy, or practice is already known to one or more supervisors;
(3) reasonably believes that an emergency is involved; or
(4) reasonably fears reprisal or discrimination as a result of disclosure.
(a) A person is not entitled to the protections under AS 39.90.100 — 39.90.150 unless the person
(1) reasonably believes that the information reported is or is about to become a matter of public concern; and
(2) reports the information in good faith.
(b) A person is entitled to the protections under AS 39.90.100 — 39.90.150 only if the matter of public concern
(1) is not the result of conduct by the person seeking protection; or
(2) is the result of conduct by the person that was required by the person's employer.
(c) As part of its written personnel policy, a public employer may require that, before an employee initiates a report on a matter of public concern under AS 39.90.100, the employee shall submit a written report concerning the matter to the employer. However, the employee is not required to submit a report if the employee
(1) reasonably believes that reports to the employer will not result in prompt action to remedy the matter of public concern;
(2) believes with reasonable certainty that the activity, policy, or practice is already known to one or more supervisors;
(3) reasonably believes that an emergency is involved; or
(4) reasonably fears reprisal or discrimination as a result of disclosure.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1997–2010 · leading case: Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Salvucci, 950 P.2d 1116 (Alaska 1997).
Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Salvucci, 950 P.2d 1116 (Alaska 1997). “We now turn to AHFC's arguments that the legislative history and a coexisting statute, AS 39.90.110(c), show that the Legislature did not intend for "public body" to include the reporting person's employer.”
Hammond v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, 107 P.3d 871 (Alaska 2005). “[6] The arbitrator stated that "[t]he essential elements of proof in a just cause case are: 1) whether the employee committed the offenses charged; 2) whether the employee was afforded due process; and 3) whether the penalty was appropriate under the facts and circumstances of…”
Okpik v. City of Barrow, 230 P.3d 672 (Alaska 2010). “Cf. Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Salvucci, 950 P.”
Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Salvucci, 950 P.2d 1106 (Alaska 1997). “We now turn to AHFC’s arguments that the legislative history and a coexisting statute, AS 39.90.110(c), show that the Legislature did not intend for “public body” to include the reporting person’s employer.”
Alaska Stat. § 39.90.110(a): 1 case
Hammond v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, 107 P.3d 871 (Alaska 2005). “[6] The arbitrator stated that "[t]he essential elements of proof in a just cause case are: 1) whether the employee committed the offenses charged; 2) whether the employee was afforded due process; and 3) whether the penalty was appropriate under the facts and circumstances of…”
Alaska Stat. § 39.90.110(a)(2): 1 case
Hammond v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, 107 P.3d 871 (Alaska 2005). “[6] The arbitrator stated that "[t]he essential elements of proof in a just cause case are: 1) whether the employee committed the offenses charged; 2) whether the employee was afforded due process; and 3) whether the penalty was appropriate under the facts and circumstances of…”
Alaska Stat. § 39.90.110(c): 3 cases
Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Salvucci, 950 P.2d 1116 (Alaska 1997). “We now turn to AHFC's arguments that the legislative history and a coexisting statute, AS 39.90.110(c), show that the Legislature did not intend for "public body" to include the reporting person's employer.”
Okpik v. City of Barrow, 230 P.3d 672 (Alaska 2010). “Cf. Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Salvucci, 950 P.”
Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Salvucci, 950 P.2d 1106 (Alaska 1997). “We now turn to AHFC’s arguments that the legislative history and a coexisting statute, AS 39.90.110(c), show that the Legislature did not intend for “public body” to include the reporting person’s employer.”
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.