Public Hearing Summaries – Commission For Human Rights

In Shirley Shadbolt vs. American Legion Muldoon #29, Shadbolt alleged race discrimination when an American Legion post falsely accused her of spreading rumors, removed her from her elected position as President, and banned her for one year, thereby depriving her of the privileges of her membership. Shadbolt added that ever since she was elected and displaced by a Caucasian incumbent, she had been harassed and subjected to hostile and offensive racial slurs by the American Legion’s “canteen” (restaurant) manager. On October 8, 2021, she attended an event at the canteen and was confronted by Respondent, embarrassed, and told to leave. Respondent denied her allegations and asserted she made comments outside her authority and responsibility, which caused the post to close the canteen and lose money. Respondent stated that because the Shadbolt’s employer is a separate corporation, it had no ability to affect her position. ASCHR’s investigation revealed that the American Legion post’s location has a canteen that serves food and alcohol, and hosts entertainment events that are open to the public; no membership is required to eat meals or attend public events in the canteen. ASCHR’s investigation also revealed the alleged harasser was responsible for managing the canteen and was known to make derogatory racial comments. Investigation also revealed the post’s canteen fosters a culture of race discrimination towards African American members and ignores or disregards complaints of discrimination. An accusation was filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on October 10, 2025. The parties agreed to undergo OAH facilitated mediation and entered into a mediated settlement agreement on December 23, 2025. As of December 31, 2025, the Hearing Unit is monitoring the matter for compliance with all terms and conditions.

In Rachelle Morrow vs. Alaska Railroad Corporation, Complainant, an African American female, alleged she was denied the opportunity to interview for a position with the Alaska Railroad for which she was qualified. Morrow also alleged that the railroad went outside of its hiring process (granting consideration and preference to current employees) and hired an external Caucasian male applicant with fewer qualifications. The railroad asserted that Morrow did not meet the minimum qualifications (MQs) for the position, and that the successful applicant was far more qualified than her. Investigation showed the hiring process was circumvented by an interloping upper management employee with a known history of not wanting women hired into positions he deemed masculine and traditionally held by men. Investigation also revealed that Morrow was qualified to interview, and that both the appropriate hiring managers wanted to interview her but were not given the opportunity because the upper management employee had violated hiring policies, hid her application from one hiring manager, and led the other to believe she would be interviewed even after the vacancy was advertised outside the company in an attempt to attract more applicants. Investigation further showed that Morrow met the MQs, had more experience and qualifications unique to the railroad to justify the hiring managers utilizing the policy for the advancement of company employees. Both hiring managers testified that if Morrow had interviewed with the internal applicants or the external applicants, including the one they selected for the position, they would have selected her for hire. Further, investigation revealed the Alaska Railroad Corporation’s board of directors was aware of and failed to address the manager’s animus and discriminatory behavior toward women. A substantial evidence determination was issued July 18, 2025. Efforts to conciliate failed and the Executive Director issued a certification of conciliation failure on August 11, 2025. An accusation was filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on September 25, 2025. The railroad filed its answer to the accusation on October 16, 2025. The parties subsequently agreed to engage in alternative dispute resolution, and on October 22, 2025, the matter was assigned to the Office of Administrative Hearings’ alternative dispute resolution process. As of December 31, 2025, the matter is stayed pending mediation.

In Sarah Jacobs vs. Kula Rentals Incorporated dba. Ginger's Restaurant, Jacobs alleged Respondent discriminated against her based on her disabilities when Ginger’s denied her service because her service dog was not wearing a vest or harness that identified the dog as a service animal, and Jacobs did not provide identification to prove the dog was a service animal. The restaurant offered contradictory accounts of the incident; however, it confirmed Jacobs 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 Jacobs 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 Commission issued a substantial evidence determination on April 8, 2025, and re-served it on or about May 13, 2025. Ginger’s failed to respond to the Commission. The Executive Director issued a Certification of Conciliation Failure on June 5, 2025. An accusation was filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on July 21, 2025. A case planning conference was held on August 13, 2025, and the matter was assigned to the OAH alternative dispute resolution process. As of December 31, 2025, the matter is stayed pending mediation.

In Emily Stevenson vs. PacRim Properties LLC, and Commodore Park Townhome Condominiums, Stevenson alleged Commodore Park Townhome Condominiums (hereinafter her HOA), her homeowners’ association, and PacRim Properties, LLC, the HOA’s real estate management company, are contractually responsible for managing her HOA’s condominium complex and they failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for her. Stevenson, who is blind, requested railings for her unit entry. REM independently determined the railing was unnecessary. However, both PacRim and the HOA approved the railing under the condition Complainant pay for it. Complainant alleged PacRim did not properly advise her HOA regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter ADA), municipal law, and state law. Both Respondents told Stevenson 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 she installed them herself. The Respondents then issued Stevenson 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. Stevenson 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 to 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. PacRim denied it was the correct party to defend the HOA’s decision, asserting they have no authority over final decisions made by HOA. PacRim further advised the HOA to contact legal counsel and stated it did not fine Stevenson. The HOA asserts Complainant’s unit is privately owned and neither the ADA nor state or municipal laws require it to pay for modifications, even if it is to accommodate a disability. The 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 Stevenson 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. The management company is tasked with advising and managing properties but has no policies regarding proper advisement for disability accommodations, as demonstrated through its communications with the HOA. The HOA also has no policies regarding reasonable accommodations, despite its control over all common areas, and retains the ability to foreclose upon owners’ properties. The 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 PacRim to proceed with the fines and threat of foreclosure, which PacRim did not hesitate to do. Both Respondents ignored Complainant’s request for variance and request for paint samples to ensure Stevenson either paints 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 Stevenson obtaining a safe and accessible railing to reasonably accommodate her disability. Conciliation efforts were unsuccessful, and a Certification of Conciliation Failure was issued March 17, 2025. An Accusation was filed with OAH on May 15, 2025. A status hearing was held on October 20, 2025, at which time the partes agreed to participate in the Office of Administrative Hearings’ alternative dispute resolution process. As of December 31, 2025, the matter is stayed pending mediation.

In Jamiann Hasselquist vs. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., In Jamiann Hasselquist v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. (OAH No. 23-0053-HRC), Complainant Jamiann Hasselquist observed a sign in Respondent’s window stating Native identification was not accepted when purchasing tobacco. A complaint was filed with the Commission March 30, 2020, and investigation found that the store employee refused to accept tribal identification cards issued by two Alaska Indian tribes. On March 22, 2022, a substantial evidence determination of discrimination was issued. When efforts to conciliate failed, a Certification of Conciliation Failure was filed with the Commission August 1, 2022. As the accusation was being drafted opposing counsel requested a settlement. The Notice of Rescission was filed September 6, 2022. However, no settlement was submitted to the Commission. A Certification of Conciliation Failure was again filed with the Commission December 27, 2022, and an accusation was filed January 3, 2023. Counsel for Respondent was initially open to mediation, and the case was scheduled for court facilitated mediation. However, the parties subsequently decided to place the matter back on the hearing calendar. On or around September 12, 2023, the parties reached a mediated settlement agreement. All terms and conditions of the agreement have been met and the case was closed on November 22, 2024.

In David Koen vs. State of Alaska, Department of Corrections, Goose Creek Correctional Center, Complainant David Koen alleged the correctional center where he is incarcerated refused his religious accommodation request for a Kosher diet. Following a thorough investigation, the substantial evidence determination was issued August 5, 2022. After months of efforts to find a resolution to this issue, an Accusation was filed with the Commission on October 27, 2022. A Case Planning Conference was held December 1, 2022, followed by an order for any motion and response regarding jurisdictional objections due January 2023. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss January 18, 2023, based on its jurisdictional objection. The Commission filed an Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss on February 10, 2023, and Respondent filed their reply February 23, 2023. On April 7, 2023, an order denying Respondent’s motion to dismiss was issued by OAH. Due to the large amount of discovery, both parties agreed to a trial continuance and an amended scheduling order. A combined oral argument on the Commission’s Motion for In Camera Review and a status conference was held on April 2, 2025. Oral argument on the Commission’s outstanding motion for In Camera Review and status conference was held December 30, 2025. As of December 31, 2025, the motion was under advisement.

In David Rockwell vs. Thomas F. Schwarz d.b.a. G.I. Joes Army/Air Force Surplus Outlet, (OAH 22-0781-HRC), the complainant alleged that GI Joes Army/Air Force Surplus Outlet discriminated against him by not allowing his service animal to enter the premises and failed to make an accommodation for his disability. The wife claimed she was afraid of big does and the owner, who was not present at the time, later claimed the dog was not allowed in because of his extreme allergies. The complainant further alleged that Respondent would not make an accommodation for his disability. Investigation by Commission staff found substantial evidence to support the Complainant’s allegations. All conciliation efforts failed, and an Accusation was filed on August 19, 2022. Following the Case Planning Conference, the hearing was scheduled for February 1, 2023. However, due to scheduling conflicts, the Commission filed an Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial on November 29, 2022. As of December 20, 2022, the Commission had not received an answer to the accusation, and a Motion for Entry of Default was filed with OAH on December 13, 2022. Ultimately, Respondent’s counsel filed a response to the accusation with OAH, along with an opposition to the Motion for Entry of Default. On January 6, 2023, the Commission received an order denying the Motion for Entry of Default. The Commission filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on February 1, 2023. During investigation, Respondent failed to provide proof of their competing disability, and the Commission filed a Motion to Preclude Respondent’s Disability Evidence on April 21, 2023. Respondent’s counsel filed an opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment on April 24, 2023, and subsequently requested both an evidentiary hearing and oral arguments. Oral arguments took place on May 30, 2023. The Commission’s Motion to Preclude Respondent’s Disability Evidence was denied on June 26, 2023. On August 15, 2023, an Evidentiary Hearing was held, and a Notice of Recommended Decision was issued by the Administrative Law Judge. No objections to the decision was filed. The Commission entered its final order on or about October 26, 2023. On January 19, 2024, a Notice Transmitting Final Decision was issued by OAH, and the case was closed with the Commission.

In Nicole Lee vs. B.V., Inc., dba Great Alaskan Bush Company, Complainant alleged that the Great Alaskan Bush Company discriminated against her on the basis of sex and her disability. While employed as a dancer, the Complainant alleged when she reported she was subjected to unwanted sexual contact, Respondent declined to follow it’s no-touching policy. Complainant also alleged she was not permitted to wear a mask to mitigate her exposure to the COVID-19 virus, and Respondent failed to engage in the interactive process to provide her an accommodation to her disability. Investigation by Commission staff found substantial evidence of both allegations. Attempts to reach a conciliation failed and an Accusation was filed with the Commission on July 8, 2022. A Case Planning Conference was held August 29, 2022. Mediation was held at OAH on February 16, 2023. On August 23, 2023, the parties reached a mediated settlement agreement addressing both public policy concerns and compensatory damages. All terms and conditions have been met and the case was closed