Case Summaries

Complainant, employed at a branch location, further alleged that, on August 5, 2024, she informed Respondent of her intention to resign from her position.  Complainant alleged that she felt she had no choice but to resign due to the discriminatory treatment from Respondent’s ABM that continued even after she complained to HR.  Respondent denied the allegations and asserted Complainant only complained when she resigned her employment on August 5, 2024, due to alleged sexual harassment by the ABM.  Once known, Respondent took immediate action, conducted a full onsite investigation with multiple interviews and was unable to substantiate Complainant’s allegations.  Respondent asserted that the ABM’s employment was terminated anyway due to the investigation showing a lack of leadership and empathy for staff and because he cornered a Respondent supervisor demanding to know what she said during the investigation.

Investigation produced evidence that showed Respondent’s supervisor did know about the conduct throughout most of complainant’s employment but failed to follow policy mandating that she report the conduct.  The supervisor’s reason was that Complainant feared retaliation resulting in job loss and was actively seeking comparable employment, and the supervisor believed the threat was real due to her own experience with the ABM.  This fear should have heightened the supervisor’s responsibility to report to HR.  Investigation also found that the Respondent’s internal investigation did produce corroborating testimony about the conduct of the ABM, toward Complainant and at least one customer, and that the customer spoke to Respondent’s Branch Manager, who also did not follow policy and report the conduct, allowing it to continue for the Complainant.  Investigation questioned why the Respondent’s HR did not substantiate the claim based on the corroborating testimony produced and Respondent’s response to that question showed HR’s decision may have been hindered by a bias regarding small town dynamics.  Investigation ultimately showed that the allegation about the medical information and report to HR was properly handled and no substantial evidence existed to show it violated AS 18.80.  Substantial evidence was found to support all other allegations, including a genuine dispute of fact.  The case has been referred to the Hearing Unit for review.

Respondent employed Complainant at a branch location.  Complainant alleged she had been subjected to unwelcome conduct and touching, sexual in nature by Respondent’s Assistant Branch Manager (hereinafter ABM), which she objected to.  Complainant alleged the ABM inquired about her medical condition when she needed an additional day off for medical leave, and when she refused, he took her to human resources for leave without approval.  Complainant alleged that she complained to her supervisor and human resources and that it resulted in Respondent’s ABM repeatedly retaliating against her by writing her up for minor infractions and raising his voice at her.  The matter has been referred to the Hearing unit for further review.

Respondent 1 is a condominium homeowners association’s property (hereinafter HOA). Respondent 2 is a real estate management company (hereinafter REM) and manages HOA’s condominium complex.  Complainant is blind and owns a unit at HOA. Complainant requested railings for her unit entry.  REM independently determined the railing was unnecessary.  However, both REM and HOA approved the railing under the condition Complainant pay for it.  Complainant alleged REM did not properly advise HOA regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter ADA), Municipal and State laws.  Both Respondents told Complainant the railing must match the building and be black metal.  Complainant alleged that an assessment conducted by an agency that provides grants for ADA accessibility approved wooden railings for her specific visual disability needs and installed them.  The Respondents then issued Complainant a violation for unauthorized modifications, demanding she remove the railings or replace them with black metal, and notified her she would be issued daily fines, up to foreclosure proceedings, if she failed to comply by June 27, 2024.  Complainant explained to both Respondents that this was a disability request for a variance in the policy, explained her need for wood and not metal, and offered to either paint the rails to match the building or black to match other metal rails.  Her request was denied.  In denying the request, Respondents told Complainant that a different owner who used a cane did not have issues with the black metal.

Both Respondents denied discriminating against Complainant.  REM denied it was the correct party to defend HOA’s decision, asserting they have no authority over final decisions made by HOA.  REM further advised HOA to contact legal counsel, and stated it did not fine Complainant. The HOA asserts Complainant’s unit is privately owned and neither the ADA, Alaska state nor municipal laws require it to pay for modifications, even if it is to accommodate a disability. HOA also asserts the railing installation is not a public accommodation and the HOA’s role is to ensure modifications are consistent with community standards. It denies that Complainant provided any information as to why she required wood rails instead of metal or why her disability prevented her from painting the railings black.

Investigation found that both respondents aided and/or abetted each other in the discrimination of the Complainant.  REM is tasked with advising and managing properties but has no policies regarding proper advisement for disability accommodations, as demonstrated through its communications with HOA. HOA also has no policies regarding reasonable accommodations, despite its control over all common areas, and retains the ability to foreclose upon owners’ properties.  HOA ignored even the most basic suggestion to speak to its attorney about Complainant’s request for variance to the policy allowing her the wooden rails, issuing a directive to REM to proceed with the fines and threat of foreclosure, which REM did not hesitate to do. Both Respondents have ignored Complainant’s request for variance and request for paint samples to ensure they either paint the rails to match the building or the black metal. Investigation revealed the issue has been ongoing since 2022 and that both respondents were always aware of Complainant’s blindness.  The actions of the Respondents caused a two-year delay in Complainant obtaining a safe and accessible railing and today the parties remain at an impasse pending this Commission’s outcome.  Conciliation efforts were unsuccessful and a Certification of Conciliation Failure was issued March 17, 2025.  As of March 31, 2025, staff is reviewing the case for administrative hearing.

Complainant alleged Respondent discriminated against them based on their disabilities when Respondent denied service to Complainant because their service dog was not wearing a vest or harness that identified the dog as a service animal, and Complainant did not provide identification to prove the dog was a service animal.  Respondent offered contradictory accounts of the incident; however, it confirmed Complainant was denied service because her dog was not identifiable as a service animal and Complainant didn’t have documentary proof the dog was a service animal. Respondent stated that Complainant was combative, argumentative, and threatening towards its staff, which Complainant denied.  The Americans with Disabilities Act does not require a person with a disability to carry identification for their service animal, or advertise their service animal’s status by means of wearing a collar or harness that displays the words “service animal” on them.  Places of public accommodation may only ask whether the person has a disability and what job the animal performs.  The case has been referred to the Hearing Unit for review.

On November 8, 2023, a complaint was filed by a patient alleging she was subjected to sexually harassing comments, conduct, innuendos, and inappropriate song lyrics while receiving treatment from Respondent who denied the allegations. During the course of that investigation, ASCHR found substantial evidence that Respondent’s owner has a history of pervasive inappropriate and harassing conduct directed not only to its female patients, but its female employees as well, including unwelcome and offensive comments and other conduct of a sexual nature. The Executive Director filed a complaint to pursue public policy goals to protect current and future employees.  The Commission issued a determination on November 4, 2024. The parties reached an agreement, and as of March 31, 2025, staff continue to monitor compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement.