The Alaska Legislature followed suit and amended the AWHA in 2005.
As amended by HB 182, the AWHA specifically provides that the "white collar" exemptions should be interpreted in accordance with the FLSA.
In this respect, the AWHA is patterned after the FLSA.
If an employer was attempting to establish an administrative employee exemption for claims filed under the FLSA and the AWHA, the burden of proof under the FLSA claim would be by a preponderance of the evidence while the burden of proof under the AWHA claim would be beyond a reasonable doubt.
As previously noted, under the AWHA an employer must establish its good faith by clear and convincing evidence in order to avoid imposition of liquidated damages.
The AWHA protects remedial rights and interests, and an argument can be made that applying a heightened burden of proof for exemptions is in keeping with this protective function.
If the right AWHA case came along, Kinegak provides an analytical foundation for overruling Fred Meyer.
186) The Alaska Legislature also retained specific guidance directing courts to interpret and apply the AWHA by reference to federal law.