## Facts

- William M. Toliver II, an African-American man in his sixties, was involved in a heated exchange with an assistant manager at a Brown Jug liquor store (Store 32) and was banned from that store.
- Toliver denied cursing or threatening the employee; the employee’s incident log stated the ban was for “causing problems” and “cursing.”
- Toliver was not banned from a different Brown Jug location (Store 55) and continued shopping there.
- Toliver complained to Brown Jug’s human resources leadership, asserting discriminatory treatment and a community perception that Store 32 was “whites only”; Brown Jug kept the Store 32 ban in place but allowed him to continue shopping at Store 55 and held a community meeting.
- Toliver gathered a neighborhood petition with signatures and contact information of individuals he claimed had experienced or witnessed discriminatory practices; he also identified Store 55’s manager as a potential corroborating witness.
- Toliver filed an administrative discrimination complaint with the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights alleging his ban from Store 32 was race-based.
- The Commission’s investigator interviewed Brown Jug personnel (including the Store 32 assistant manager and a human resources executive) but did not interview the Store 55 manager or any petition signatories.
- The Commission closed the complaint for lack of “substantial evidence,” and the superior court affirmed, reasoning there was insufficient connection between the incident and the proposed witnesses.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission’s statutory duty to conduct an impartial investigation requires a reasonable effort to interview at least some witnesses identified by the complainant when they appear to have relevant information.
2. Whether the Commission breached that duty by dismissing Toliver’s complaint without interviewing any complainant-identified witnesses.
3. Whether a substantial-evidence dismissal can stand when based on a one-sided investigative record.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s affirmance of the Commission’s dismissal.
- The court held the Commission’s duty to “impartially investigate” implies an obligation to make a reasonable effort to interview at least some complainant-identified witnesses who appear to have relevant information.
- The court held the Commission failed to satisfy that duty because it interviewed only employer-side witnesses and none of Toliver’s identified witnesses.
- The case was remanded to the Commission for an impartial investigation consistent with the court’s rule.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory duty to “impartially investigate” discrimination complaints requires more than collecting information from one side; the agency must reasonably pursue relevant sources identified by the complainant.
- The agency need not interview every witness proposed by a complainant, but must make a reasonable effort to contact at least some identified witnesses when their relevance is apparent.
- A determination that a complaint lacks substantial evidence is unreliable when reached through an incomplete, one-sided investigation that fails to reasonably pursue potentially corroborating witnesses.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court required the Commission to conduct a more balanced investigation by making reasonable efforts to interview at least some complainant-identified witnesses with potentially relevant information before dismissing a discrimination complaint for lack of substantial evidence.


Toliver v. Alaska State Comm'n for Hum. Rights, 279 P.3d 619 (Alaska 2012)