Morkunas v. Anchorage Telephone Utility
Alaska Supreme Court
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
- Wien Air Alaska v. ArantAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
- Hood v. State, Workmen's Compensation BoardAlaska Supreme Court · 1978
- Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 1982
- Jones v. ShortAlaska Supreme Court · 1985
- Anchorage Municipal Employees Ass'n v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1980
3Cited by6 opinions
- Conaway v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1992
- McConkey v. HartAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
- Law Office of Brattain v. AndersonAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
- Turpin v. North Slope BoroughAlaska Supreme Court · 1994
- 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.