Legal Opinion

McKeown v. Kinney Shoe Corp.

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1991No. S-4024PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BURKE, Justice.

This case requires us to decide whether an employer and an employee may privately settle claims for liquidated damages arising under the Alaska Wage and Hour Act. We conclude that they may not.

I

Four individual plaintiffs brought class action wage and hour claims against Kinney Shoe Corporation. The claims were brought on behalf of six classes of past and present Kinney employees. All of the claims alleged violations of the Alaska Wage and Hour Act (AWHA), AS 23.10.-050-.150; four of the classes represented were past and present employees to whom Kinney allegedly had not…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'NeilSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Webster v. Bechtel, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Dreiling v. Home State Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1973
  4. Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Alaska Department of LaborAlaska Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Thorstenson v. ARCO Alaska, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Shehata v. Salvation ArmyAlaska Supreme Court · 2010
  2. DeSalvo v. BryantAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Bobich v. StewartAlaska Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Henash v. IpalookAlaska Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. ShookAlaska Supreme Court · 1999

11 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