Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070

Section 09.10.070 gives AS 18.80 claims a two-year filing period that can be equitably tolled while the claimant pursues relief before the Human Rights Commission.

Beegan v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities · filed 2008-10-31

Under AS 09.10.070, claims based on AS 18.80 must be brought within two years of the offending conduct. ... Because Beegan filed his claim in superior court approximately nine months after the Commission issued its decision, and because his claim was equitably tolled during the pendency of the Commission proceedings, Beegan's noneconomic damages claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Equitable estoppel against a two-year limitations defense under § 09.10.070(a) does not require clear and convincing evidence.

Alaska Fur Gallery, Inc. v. First National Bank Alaska · filed 2015-03-13(a)

But these policy concerns do not apply here, and we have never required “clear and convincing evidence” to prove equitable estoppel in the context of a statute of limitations defense. We decline to do so now.

The two-year limitation for tort suits bars a defamation claim filed after that period when the plaintiff alleges no facts justifying equitable tolling.

Gregory R. Giocondo, for himself and as the parent v. Fairbanks Daily News Miner · filed 2017-07-19(a)

Here Giocondo’s pleading clearly shows that he filed his claim outside of the two-year statutory period, and he failed to allege any facts that might justify equitable tolling.

Section 09.10.070's two-year period governs Alaska whistleblower and unlawful-discrimination tort claims, barring claims arising before the date two years prior to filing.

Keen · filed 2026-03-30

Although AMC 3.75.010 et seq. does not include a statute of limitations, the statute of limitations for torts in Alaska is two years. And, the Alaska Supreme Court has held that the two year statute of limitations governs state law claims of unlawful discrimination. ... Accordingly, the MOA is entitled to summary judgment on all such claims related to 2022 promotions.

Section 09.10.070(3) limits back-pay recovery to the two years before suit when sporadic complaints to an employer do not establish pursuit of administrative remedies and suit is filed five years after discovery of the discrimination.

Brown v. Wood · filed 1978-01-27(3)

Appellant does not dispute the trial court’s application of AS 09.10.070(3), but argues that the statute should be tolled during the period she was pursuing administrative remedies and during the period in which she was unaware of the discrimination against her (i. e., prior to 1968). We do not agree. Even if we were to find that pursuit of administrative remedies in employment discrimination cases tolled the applicable statute of limitations, we do not find that the sporadic complaints made by Brown to University officials between 1968 and 1972 constitute pursuit of administrative remedies. With regard to appellant’s second argument, the statute might possibly be tolled if she had brought suit within two years of discovery of the discrimination, but not, as is the case, where suit was brought some five years after the discovery. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err when it limited Brown’s recovery of back pay to that earned within two years prior to commencement of her suit.

Section 09.10.070(3), together with AS 23.05.140(b), gives a terminated employee up to two years and three days after termination to sue for unpaid wages.

Quinn v. Alaska State Employees Ass'n/American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 52 · filed 1997-08-29(3)

In Reed v. Municipality of Anchorage, 741 P.2d 1181 (Alaska 1987), we held that the statute of limitation for “liability created by statute,” AS 09.10.070(3), applied to claims made under AS 23.05.140(b), and that the combined effect of these two statutes was to give a terminated employee up to two years and three days after termination to file a claim for unpaid wages under AS 23.05.140(b). ... His claim for unpaid overtime and a penalty under AS 23.05.140(b) and (d), which provide for recovery of “all wages, salaries, or other compensation for labor or services” and for “a penalty in the amount of the employee’s regular wage ... from the time of demand to the time of payment, or for 90 working days, whichever is the lesser amount,” was timely filed.

Section 09.10.070 bars § 1983 claims based on alleged discrimination the plaintiff recognized more than two years before filing, even when the plaintiff invokes a continuing violation theory.

Sengupta v. University of Alaska · filed 2001-04-27

Thus, because Sengupta perceived the alleged discrimination outside of the two-year limitations period, the superior court properly concluded that AS 09.10.070 bars his salary and sick leave claims.

Under the continuing violations doctrine, incidents before the two-year limitations period may help prove that a hostile work environment continued into that period.

Reich v. Cominco Alaska, Inc. · filed 2002-10-04

Alaska Statute 09.10.070, the two-year statute of limitations, determines the timeliness of her hostile work environment claim. ... The continuing violations doctrine allows a plaintiff to establish the elements of a hostile work environment claim by relying on incidents that predate the statutory limitations period to prove that a hostile environment continued into the limitations period.

Section 09.10.070 requires sexual harassment claims to be brought within two years of the wrongful conduct.

Mahan v. Arctic Catering, Inc. · filed 2006-04-21(a)(5)

Because this alleged harassment all occurred more than two years before Mahan filed her complaint, her sexual harassment claim was time-barred to the extent that it was based on the Badami camp incidents.

Section 09.10.070(a) requires age discrimination claims under AS 18.80.220 to be brought within two years of the offending conduct.

Lingley v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. · filed 2016-05-18(a)

Age discrimination claims under AS 18.80.220 must be brought within two years of the offending conduct. AS 09.10.070(a).

Workers’ compensation discrimination claims have a two-year statute of limitations.

Todeschi v. Sumitomo Metal Mining Pogo, LLC · filed 2017-04-28(a)

The statute of limitations for workers’ compensation discrimination claims is two years, and Todeschi brought his claim in February 2011.

Section 09.10.070 allows tort plaintiffs two years to bring an action without meeting a shorter municipal notice deadline.

Johnson v. City of Fairbanks · filed 1978-07-28

The uniform limitations period impliedly allows every victim of tortious conduct in Alaska, regardless of where he resides and regardless of whether the alleged tortious conduct was by a governmental unit or not, to commence an action for damages within two years without complying with any other time limit.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year period for tort actions prevents a municipality from requiring notice of a claim within a shorter period as a condition of suit.

DeHusson v. City of Anchorage · filed 1978-07-28

Accordingly, Section 1.10 of the Anchorage City Charter, which bars actions against the city unless the required notice of claim has been filed within 120 days after the injury occurs, is invalid.

Section 09.10.070(3)’s two-year period for liabilities created by statute does not govern a borough’s claims for past property taxes; the six-year period for actions by political subdivisions applies.

Alascom, Inc. v. North Slope Borough, Board of Equalization · filed 1983-02-18(3)

Alascom argues that the two-year statute of limitations applicable to liabilities created by statute, AS 09.10.070(3), should be applied to the Borough’s efforts to levy past years’ taxes. ... In our view, the 1962 amendment evinces a legislative intent that a general six-year statute of limitations applies when a borough pursues a claim, regardless of the nature of the claim.

The two-year limit bars damages for acts outside the limitations period in an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, even when the acts are treated as continuing conduct.

Oaksmith v. Brusich · filed 1989-05-12

Regardless of whether one views these acts as continuing or separate, the acts prior to May 21, 1983 cannot form the basis of any damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Section 09.10.070 gives two years to bring tort damages claims; a later request based on the same alleged injury does not restart the period under the continuing violations doctrine.

Hertz v. Joe Schmidt, Jeffrey Edwards, Alaska Board of Paro · filed 2015-12-23(a)

Thus, we decline to apply the continuing violations doctrine and hold that AS 09.10.070 bars Hertz’s damages claims.

Alaska’s two-year personal injury limitation period cannot be shortened by the tour contract’s filing clause without a showing that enforcement is needed to avoid prejudice.

Long v. Holland America Line Westours, Inc. · filed 2001-07-13

For cases involving personal injury, the legislature struck a balance between these competing policies by adopting a two-year statute of limitations.23 ... In our view, public policy bars enforcement of the clause at issue here because Holland America has failed to allege or show that enforcement of the clause is necessary to avoid prejudice.

Section 09.10.070 does not necessarily bar later claims for a temporary nuisance merely because the nuisance began more than two years earlier.

Van Deusen v. Seavey · filed 2002-08-23

Because we hold that the claimed nuisance is temporary and not permanent, claims after 1995 are not necessarily barred by AS 09.10.070.