## Facts

- Maurice Mitchell, an African American warehouse supervisor at the Red Dog Mine, worked for Teck Cominco Alaska, Inc.
- A contractor’s employee (L.B.) complained that Mitchell, through communications involving a mutual friend, offered her summer employment in exchange for sex.
- Teck interviewed Mitchell; Mitchell asserted he was not told the specific accusation, the interview was brief, and he lacked a meaningful chance to respond.
- A written statement by the mutual friend suggested discussions about Mitchell’s personal interest and a possible summer job were separate, not quid pro quo.
- Teck did not re-interview Mitchell or pursue further inquiry with him before terminating him for sexual harassment and alleged dishonesty during the investigation.
- Mitchell alleged disparate discipline, citing evidence that a white supervisor who sexually harassed a contractor’s employee received only a written warning.
- Mitchell sued for statutory race discrimination and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and wrongful discharge.
- The trial court converted Teck’s motion to dismiss the discrimination claim into summary judgment; Mitchell filed an affidavit and sought additional discovery time under Civil Rule 56(f), which Teck did not oppose.
- The court granted summary judgment on the discrimination claim without ruling on the Rule 56(f) request and while discovery was still ongoing; it later granted summary judgment to Teck on the good-faith claim and denied Mitchell’s cross-motion on both contract claims.
- Mitchell sought to disqualify the trial judge based on the judge’s wife owning shares in NANA (the regional corporation owning the mine land); disqualification was denied.
- Final judgment entered for Teck with an attorney’s-fee award under Civil Rule 68.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment on the discrimination claim without addressing an unopposed Rule 56(f) request for discovery time and where the moving party submitted no supporting evidence.
2. Whether genuine disputes of material fact about the employer’s investigation and motives barred summary judgment on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim.
3. Whether Mitchell was entitled to summary judgment on his implied-covenant and wrongful-discharge claims.
4. Whether the trial judge was required to disqualify himself due to his spouse’s NANA share ownership.
5. Whether the Rule 68 attorney’s-fee award could stand after appellate disposition of the merits.

## Decision

- Vacated summary judgment for Teck on the race-discrimination claim; the Rule 56(f) discovery request should have been granted before resolving the converted summary-judgment motion.
- Reversed summary judgment for Teck on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim due to triable factual disputes about the investigation and disciplinary decision.
- Affirmed denial of Mitchell’s cross-motion for summary judgment on both the implied-covenant and wrongful-discharge claims because factual disputes prevented judgment as a matter of law in his favor.
- Affirmed the denial of judicial disqualification; the spouse’s share ownership did not create a disqualifying interest in the case outcome.
- Vacated final judgment and the Rule 68 attorney’s-fee award and remanded for further proceedings on all claims.

## Legal Principles

- When a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is converted to summary judgment, the court must ensure the nonmovant has a fair opportunity to obtain and present evidence; a properly supported Rule 56(f) request for needed discovery should be addressed before granting summary judgment.
- Rule 56(f) protects against premature summary judgment where the nonmovant identifies specific discovery needed to oppose the motion, especially when the request is unopposed.
- The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing includes subjective and objective components; an employer may breach it through unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory, or inadequately conducted disciplinary processes.
- Evidence of a rushed or incomplete investigation, failure to provide an adequate opportunity to respond, and inconsistent discipline of similarly situated employees can create triable issues on an implied-covenant claim.
- Judicial disqualification requires a sufficiently direct interest in the litigation’s outcome; an attenuated financial connection through a spouse’s share ownership in a nonparty does not necessarily require recusal.
- When liability and judgment are vacated or reversed, a dependent attorney’s-fee award based on the prior judgment must be vacated.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court held that summary judgment on Mitchell’s discrimination claim was premature in light of an unaddressed, unopposed discovery continuance request, and that factual disputes about Teck’s investigation and disciplinary treatment required reversal of summary judgment on the implied covenant claim; it remanded for further proceedings, while upholding denial of the judge’s disqualification and vacating the final judgment and fee award.


Mitchell v. Teck Cominco Alaska, Inc., 193 P.3d 751 (Alaska 2008)