Legal Opinion

Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided September 13, 1996No. S-7128PublishedCited by 79 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

EASTAUGH, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

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,”…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1987
  3. State v. AlexAlaska Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Washington Water Power Co. v. Washington State Human Rights CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  5. North Slope Borough v. Sohio Petroleum Corp.Alaska Supreme Court · 1978

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by79 opinions

  1. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. DeShongAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Donato v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2000
  3. Shehata v. Salvation ArmyAlaska Supreme Court · 2010
  4. City of Valdez v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2016
  5. Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Graham-GonzalezAlaska Supreme Court · 2005

74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API