Legal Opinion

Morkunas v. Anchorage Telephone Utility

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1988No. S-2217PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

COMPTON, Justice.

This appeal raises the question whether an Anchorage Telephone Utility (ATU) employee demoted from an executive position to a partially exempt classified position was entitled to pre-demotion notice of the imposition of a probationary period.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Algis Morkunas was an employee of ATU. From the time he was hired in September 1980 until November 8, 1984, Mor-kunas was an “executive employee.” On November 8, Morkunas was given a choice between dismissal and demotion to a “partially exempt” position at the same pay. Morkunas chose demotion…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wien Air Alaska v. ArantAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Hood v. State, Workmen's Compensation BoardAlaska Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Jones v. ShortAlaska Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Anchorage Municipal Employees Ass'n v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1980

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Conaway v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1992
  2. McConkey v. HartAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Law Office of Brattain v. AndersonAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Turpin v. North Slope BoroughAlaska Supreme Court · 1994
  5. John D. Rochon v. City of Nome, Allen Wright, and Jackie L.ReaderAlaska Supreme Court · 2025

1 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