Case Summaries

Complainant alleged he was subjected to unwanted and offensive sexual comments, physical touching, and derogatory comments regarding his age. Complainant further alleged he was subjected to derogatory comments regarding his spouse’s race, Asian, and retaliated against by placing him on suspension after complaining about the harassment. He was subsequently terminated. Commission investigation found substantial evidence of discrimination, and a determination was issued on December 16, 2023. A Conciliation Agreement was approved on March 8, 2024, with Respondent agreeing to anti-discrimination training, removing all facts and circumstances leading to Complainant filing a charge of discrimination, and agreeing to a back pay settlement of $57,393.32. The Commission was notified on or around May 9th, 2024, that all terms of the agreement had been met, and this case was closed.

Complainant alleged she was subjected to unwanted physical sexual harassment by the owner of the restaurant where she was employed. Complainant further alleged the unwelcome comments and conduct escalated after Respondent learned about Complainant’s sexual orientation. Additionally, Complainant alleged her work schedule was significantly reduced after filing a complaint with the commission, which initiated a separate investigation for retaliation. A Resolution Conference was held on February 14, 2023, with both parties entering into an agreement. A third investigation was opened when Complainant informed the Commission that she was only scheduled for one shift, a violation of the previous Pre-Determination Settlement Agreement that was entered into after the February 14, 2023, Resolution Conference. Complainant further alleged that she was scheduled for shifts she was not available for after informing Respondent of her daytime employment outside of her employment with Respondent. Commission investigation determined there was substantial evidence of discrimination, and a determination was issued on December 13, 2023. A Conciliation Agreement was approved on March 20, 2024, with Respondent agreeing to train all staff in English and in Spanish, update their policy and procedures regarding anti-discrimination in English and in Spanish, monitoring of training for one year, implementing a third-party HR firm to handle complaints of discrimination, and pay Complainant back pay in the amount of $12,503.53. On or  round June 11, 2024, the Commission was informed all terms of the agreement had been met, and a closing order was issued.

Complainant alleged that his Home Owner’s Association (HOA) discriminated against him by having a policy that excludes all animals, including Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) and service/alert animals. The Commission’s investigation found substantial evidence of discrimination, and a determination was issued June 29, 2023. On or around July 31, 2023, Complainant entered into a separate agreement with the HOA, and withdrew his complaint with the Commission shortly after. The Executive Director substituted as the complainant to pursue the Commission’s policy goals on August 18, 2023. Respondent entered into an agreement with the Commission on October 20, 2023, agreeing to update the HOA policy regarding service animals, post signage that service animals are welcome, and provide a relief area for service animals. Additionally, Respondent agreed to anti-discrimination training for all HOA board members. The Commission is monitoring the terms of this agreement.

Complainant alleged that she informed Respondent’s owner of her need for time off due to severe morning sickness symptoms related to her pregnancy and was told by Respondent’s owner to stay home until she had recovered.  Complainant further alleged that she was then informed by Respondent’s owner that her hourly and commission-based position was being eliminated, stating that it was “not working out” and because she was taking sick leave due to her pregnancy, she was offered a commission-only remote position.  Respondent denied the allegations and asserted that it did not impose material adverse changes to Complainant’s compensation or benefits; instead it offered Complainant a remote, commission-only role designed to address her performance shortfalls and keep staff at positions where their skills can be best utilized.  Complainant initially refused the position but showed up the following day intending to begin training and on August 27, 2024, when its manager refused to sign Complainant’s self-drafted termination letter, she abruptly resigned.  A Resolution Conference was held on January 10, 2025, and the parties entered into a Pre-Determination Settlement Agreement with Respondent compensating Complainant $10,000.

Complainant alleged that Respondent discriminated against her based on the disabilities of closely associated children she had temporary custody of.  Complainant alleged her sister’s children have a dog that is a service animal for one child and an emotional support animal for the other.  Complainant began receiving notices to quit shortly after the dog and children moved in, that required her to remove the dog.  Eviction proceedings were filed in Alaska Superior Court.  Respondent denied the allegations, asserting that the dog had lunged at someone causing them to pepper spray the animal, and had bitten another resident, neither residing with Complainant.  Respondent provided evidence of animal control impound notice, a photo of the asserted dog bite, and evidence of the interactive process that eventually denied the animal due to the animal posing a direct threat to a person.  Complainant insisted the dog was not the one that causing the problems and it was a different pit bull, with animal control having cleared her dog.  Respondent disputed that as well and showed further evidence indicating Complainant’s dog had a second bite notice right before she vacated the unit December 26, 2024.  Her vacating of the unit caused the dismissal of the court proceeding but Respondent was pursuing Complainant for $6,300 for various items and issues.  Complainant admitted that there was a “No Pet” rule and that others with emotional support animals or service animals were not targeted. When asked why the manager would target Complainant otherwise, Respondent revealed several valid and nondiscriminatory reasons.  Finding the matter would not result in substantial evidence of discrimination or public policy concerns, the Commission then conducted an informal negotiation between the parties in which Complainant agreed to withdraw her case in exchange for Respondent dropping the pursuit of all fees and/or collections against her.  A Closing Order was issued on March 28, 2025.