Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.
| Citation | 923 P.2d 783 |
| Decision Date | 13 September 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. S-7128,S-7128 |
| Parties | 73 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 579, 69 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,539 Bambi (Relkin) MULLER and Lowell Relkin, Plaintiffs, v. BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC., Defendant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alaska (US) |
Harry Relkin, Albuquerque, New Mexico, pro se.
Ben J. Esch, Garretson & Esch, Anchorage, for Plaintiffs.
Katherine C. Tank, Perkins Coie, Anchorage, for Defendant.
Before COMPTON, C.J., RABINOWITZ, MATTHEWS, and EASTAUGH, JJ., and CARPENETI, J. Pro Tem. *
We here consider the effect of the marital status anti-discrimination clause in AS 18.80.220(a)(1). After an unmarried couple sued their former employer, the United States District Court for the District of Alaska certified to us the following two questions: whether AS 18.80.220(a)(1) prevents an employer from discriminating against an employee "based on the identity of his spouse," and whether AS 18.80.220(a)(1) is limited to preventing employers from discriminating based on the status of being married. We answer these questions "no," and "yes," respectively. Although AS 18.80.220(a)(1) prevents employers from discriminating based on the marital status of their employees, it does not prevent discrimination based on the identity of the employee's spouse or future spouse.
Bambi (Relkin) Muller and Lowell Relkin sued BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. (BP) in 1993 in the Alaska superior court, alleging that BP had unlawfully discriminated against them in violation of AS 18.80.220(a)(1). 1 BP removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska on the basis of diversity of citizenship, and moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment to BP on all claims, except plaintiffs' claim of "marital status" discrimination. Recognizing that there was no controlling Alaska decisional precedent, the district court certified the following questions to us pursuant to Alaska Appellate Rule 407(a): 2
Does Alaska's marital discrimination law, [AS] 18.80.220, apply to prevent an employer from discriminating against an employee based on the identity of his spouse, or future spouse, or is the statute limited to preventing employers from discrimination based on the status of being married, or about to be married?
We agreed to answer these questions.
The district court found the following facts:
This case arose after Plaintiffs resigned from their respective jobs with British Petroleum ("BP"). Plaintiff Lowell Relkin ("Relkin") had been working at BP since 1985 as an A Tech Production Operator. A production technician or operator controls the production of oil "from the reservoir to the gathering centers and is responsible for all associated equipment and piping between those two points."
In the fall of 1989, BP implemented a program to train new production operators. The four-year program was designed to take someone with no experience in oil production and train them to become E, D, C, B, and, ultimately, an A Tech Production Operator. The training program was to commence with six months of basic training or classroom instruction, to be followed by rotations in the field on an assigned crew under production operator mentors. Relkin was selected to coordinate the new operator training program about November of 1989. This placement, which was a promotion, was meant to be temporary.
Bambi (Relkin) Muller ("Muller") was working for BP in an administrative capacity in Anchorage when she applied to become a trainee. The training program was a step up for Muller. In about February, 1990, Muller and nine others were chosen for the training program, and became known as E Tech Production Operator Trainees. At the time of the selection process, Relkin and Muller did not know each other.
In the spring of 1990, the classroom portion of the training program began. In November, Muller, along with four others, were assigned to the A shift during the day. Within two months of the beginning of the training program, Relkin and Muller began to develop a romantic relationship. Plaintiffs informed BP of the relationship. BP informed Plaintiffs that there was no problem with their relationship and that no policy existed forbidding such a relationship. Plaintiffs were informed, however, that if the relationship led to marriage, Relkin may have to step down as training coordinator.1 The policy given to employees (employee handbook) stated that no discrimination based on marital status would exist. However, the supervisors['] manual contained BP's anti-nepotism policy which prohibited married persons from supervising one another.
Plaintiffs were engaged approximately four months later. In September of 1990, Relkin was allegedly informed that he would be removed as training coordinator because of the engagement. Additionally, Relkin, immediately following his removal as training coordinator, was placed temporarily on the night shift while Muller remained in classroom training on the day shift. Under normal shift rotations, Plaintiffs would have worked the same shift approximately fifty percent of the time. Relkin inquired into why he and Muller could not work the same shift. Relkin agreed to a demotion and a distant position as long as he and Muller could have the same hours. BP's Production Manager, Barney Dotson ("Dotson"), allegedly informed Plaintiffs that he would never allow them to work the same shift and if they kept asking, Relkin would be terminated. Relkin then allegedly learned from his immediate supervisor, Mel Pye ("Pye"), that the supervisors were threatened with termination if they allowed Plaintiffs to work the same twelve hour shift. Then, during meetings with the Human Resources Department management, Plaintiffs were allegedly told that BP management was "out to get" Plaintiffs.
On November 6, 1990, Plaintiffs entered BP's grievance process and grieved Relkin's demotion, management's decision not to allow them to work the same twelve hour shift, and discriminatory practices based on Plaintiffs['] personal relationship. At the first level, the grievance was decided against the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs then continued the grievance to level II of V. Level II led to a grievance settlement. The settlement provided that: (1) Relkin would step down as training coordinator; (2) a new rotation schedule would be created for the trainees which would allow, in three months, Relkin and Muller to be on the same twelve hour shift (the new schedule, like the old one, provided that changes could be made for operational reasons) and thereafter be treated as any other employee; (3) the grievance would be considered settled; and (4) upon a regular rotation, Relkin would be Muller's mentor.
Thereafter, the agreed rotation schedule went into effect. About two and a half months later, on February 24, 1991, BP informed the trainees and mentors that implementation of the second rotation, which was to begin four days later, would be delayed. BP says the reason for the delay was a shortage of mentors and a request by the trainees that the rotation be delayed until after they took an April exam. Plaintiffs hold that BP informed them personally that the settlement agreement would not be honored.
On the evening of February 23, 1991, Relkin reported to the medic with a stress related illness and was ordered to bed rest by BP medical staff. Relkin, on February 25, 1991, attended a letter of reprimand meeting in which he was presented with a letter of reprimand outlining deficiencies in Relkin's work, aptitude, and ability to get along with others. Relkin admitted to some of the facts in the letter but denied any wrongdoing. Relkin did not grieve the letter of reprimand. Relkin and Muller did not grieve the delay in implementing the rotation schedule.
At the end of the February 25, 1991, meeting, Relkin submitted his resignation. On the same day, Muller submitted her resignation. Shortly after the April exam, the agreed upon rotation schedule went into effect.
At oral argument before us, their counsel asserted that Muller and Relkin were co-employees, and that although initially Relkin was Muller's supervisor, ultimately neither was in a supervisory position over the other. BP did not dispute that characterization of the facts.
The meaning of the term "marital status" in AS 18.80.220(a)(1) presents an issue of first impression in Alaska. Muller and Relkin ask us to interpret the term "expansively," to prohibit employment discrimination based on the identity of one's spouse, not just on the condition of being married or unmarried. They argue that an expansive interpretation of "marital status" is suited to preventing the discriminatory practices contemplated by the Alaska legislature in enacting the Alaska Human Rights Act (AHRA). BP responds that elementary principles of statutory interpretation and considerations of public policy require that "marital status" be interpreted in accordance with the plain meaning of that term.
Alaska Statute 18.80.220 provides in relevant part:
(a) It is unlawful for
(1) an employer to refuse employment to a person, or to bar a person from employment, or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in a term, condition, or privilege of employment because of the person's race, religion, color or national origin, or because of the person's age, physical or mental disability, sex, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy or parenthood when the reasonable demands of the position do not require distinction on the basis of age, physical or mental disability, sex, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy or parenthood.
However, AS 18.80.220 does not define the term "marital status." We use our independent judgment to determine what the legislature intended by this term. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights v. State, 796 P.2d 458, 460 (Alaska 1990) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co., Inc.
...state of being married, and does not extend to include the identity of the person to whom one is married." Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 788 (Alaska 1996). The Supreme Court of Michigan examined whether "one is married rather than to whom one is married." Miller v. ......
-
Chen v. County of Orange, G027307.
...was the change in his marital status. . . ." (Id. at p. 1042.) On the other hand, the high courts of Alaska (Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (Alaska 1996) 923 P.2d 783),14 Illinois (Boaden v. Department of Law Enforcement (1996) 171 Ill.2d 230, 215 Ill.Dec. 664, 664 N.E.2d 61),15 Mic......
-
Donato v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
...an identification of one's present former spouse and certainly not the spouse's occupation. Id. at 953; see also Muller v. BP Exploration, Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 788 (Alaska 1996) (defining marital status as "condition of being married or unmarried"); Blackwell v. Danbury Hosp., No. 321561, 19......
-
Taylor v. LSI CORP. OF AMERICA, No. A09-1410.
...for the same employer— have determined they do not state valid marital-discrimination claims. See, e.g., Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 791 (Alaska 1996) (holding that "extending the reach of the anti-discrimination law to employment decisions based on to whom a pers......