Denver Health & Hosp. Auth. v. Houchin
| Decision Date | 21 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court Case No. 19SC354 |
| Parties | DENVER HEALTH AND HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. Brent M. HOUCHIN, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Attorneys for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent: Fairfield and Woods, P.C., Brent T. Johnson, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner: EEO Legal Solutions LLC, Merrily Archer, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Colorado Plaintiff Employment Lawyers Association and Colorado Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Bar Association: Cornish & Dell'Olio, P.C., Ian D. Kalmanowitz, Bradley J. Sherman, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae La Plata County: Asimakis D. Iatridis, LLC, Maki Iatridis, Boulder, Colorado
En Banc
¶1 We granted certiorari principally to review the court of appeals division's conclusions that Brent M. Houchin's claims for compensatory damages under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act ("CADA"), section 24-34-405, C.R.S. (2020), were barred by operation of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act ("CGIA"), section 24-10-106, C.R.S. (2020), but that his equitable claims under CADA could proceed.1
¶2 For the reasons discussed in Elder v. Williams , 2020 CO 88, 477 P.3d 694, which we are also announcing today, we conclude that (1) neither claims for compensatory relief nor claims for equitable relief against a governmental entity under section 24-34-405 of CADA lie in tort or could lie in tort, and thus neither of such categories of claims are barred by the CGIA; (2) "the state," as that term is used in subsection 24-34-405(8)(g), includes political subdivisions of the state; and (3) in light of the foregoing, we need not reach Houchin's contention that the division majority's interpretation of subsection 24-34-405(8)(g) deprives employees of the state's political subdivisions of equal protection guarantees under the state and federal constitutions.
¶3 Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the division below and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.2
¶4 Because this case arises from an order dismissing Houchin's claims, for present purposes, we take the facts principally from the allegations of Houchin's complaint.
¶5 In 2012, the Denver Health and Hospital Authority hired Houchin as an Employee Relations Specialist and promoted him several years later to Employee Relations Manager. Throughout Houchin's time at Denver Health, his supervisor consistently rated his performance as "successful" and "exceptional."
¶6 The employee relations team that Houchin oversaw at Denver Health was responsible for, among other things, ensuring compliance with all applicable laws and internal employee relations policies, reviewing disciplinary and termination decisions to ensure legal compliance, and monitoring and updating all employee relations policies. In addition, Denver Health's Drug and Alcohol-Free Workplace Policy required Houchin to take immediate action, including the imposition of "investigative leave," based on reasonable suspicion of employee violations.
¶7 As pertinent here, in an employee relations matter concerning the suspected diversion of controlled substances, a former in-house lawyer for Denver Health advised that using an employee's medical records from off-duty medical care in connection with an internal investigation would violate the privacy requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). Houchin objected to this interpretation of HIPAA because he (1) felt that it prevented him from investigating other suspected employee diversions of controlled substances and (2) believed that HIPAA permitted the use of such employee information to detect health care fraud and abuse.
¶8 At some point thereafter, Tim Hansen joined Denver Health as Interim Chief Human Resources Officer. Shortly after his arrival, Hansen invited Houchin and another person to his office for the purpose of getting to know his leadership team better. During the course of this meeting, Hansen shared personal information about his family, and Houchin responded with personal information and anecdotes about his husband and their lives together. According to Houchin, upon hearing this, Hansen's countenance registered an expression of disgust, and he quickly redirected the conversation back to himself and his family. In addition, Houchin perceived that in subsequent interactions, Hansen began treating him with noticeable disrespect, declining to greet or make eye contact with him, excluding him from discussions pertinent to his position, and publicly criticizing him as overpaid.
¶9 A few weeks later, Houchin became involved in an employee relations issue concerning suspected methadone
diversion by a supervisor at Denver Health's opioid addiction treatment center. In accordance with Denver Health policy, Houchin recommended that the supervisor in question be placed on investigative leave. According to Houchin, Hansen agreed with this course of action and directed Houchin to proceed to implement it, which Houchin did.
¶10 The next week, Houchin attended a meeting in which the above-referenced in-house counsel and others discussed an alleged violation of the supervisor's HIPAA rights in connection with the foregoing investigation. Houchin reiterated his disagreement with this interpretation of HIPAA.
¶11 Shortly after this meeting, Hansen summoned Houchin to his office and, apparently for the first time, expressed concerns regarding Houchin's decision to recommend that the supervisor be placed on investigative leave (Hansen denied having directed Houchin to implement this course of action). Houchin suspected that he was being set up for termination, but he requested coaching and further feedback to address any concerns and to improve his performance, notwithstanding the fact that he had never previously been disciplined or counseled relating to his employment at Denver Health.
¶12 A week later, Hansen terminated Houchin's employment, purportedly based on two alleged HIPAA violations. Following his termination, Houchin appears to have commenced Denver Health's "Concern Resolution" process to address what he believed to be the discriminatory circumstances of his termination. He also applied for unemployment benefits, but those benefits were ultimately denied, due, in his view, to false information submitted by Denver Health regarding the reasons for his termination.
¶13 Houchin then filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, alleging discrimination based on his sexual orientation and retaliation for using Denver Health's "Concern Resolution" process to address such discrimination. The Civil Rights Division ultimately issued a Notice of Right to Sue, and Houchin filed a complaint against Denver Health and Hansen in the Denver District Court, alleging claims of, among other things, discrimination based on sexual orientation and unlawful retaliation under CADA. Houchin demanded judgment in amounts to be determined at trial, including back pay, front pay, and compensatory damages.
¶14 Denver Health subsequently moved to dismiss Houchin's complaint, arguing, among other things, that Houchin's discrimination and retaliation claims under CADA lie in tort and are therefore barred by the CGIA. Specifically, Denver Health argued that City of Colorado Springs v. Conners , 993 P.2d 1167 (Colo. 2000), which had concluded that CADA claims were not subject to the CGIA, was inapposite because that case turned on the limited equitable remedies then available under CADA's predecessor statute. In Denver Health's view, the 2013 amendments to CADA, which for the first time authorized, among other things, front pay and compensatory and punitive damages, added tort remedies to CADA such that CADA claims like those that Houchin was asserting here were now tortious in nature and thus barred by the CGIA.
¶15 The district court ultimately disagreed with Denver Health, concluding in a detailed and thoughtful order that Houchin's CADA claims were not barred by the CGIA. The court reasoned that CADA primarily provides equitable relief to claimants who experience discrimination and that the remaining forms of relief under CADA, including those providing monetary damages to a claimant, were merely incidental to CADA's greater purpose of eliminating workplace discrimination.
¶16 Denver Health appealed, and in a split, published decision, a division of the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Houchin v. Denver Health & Hosp. Auth. , 2019 COA 50M, 479 P.3d 9. As pertinent here, the division majority began its analysis with a lengthy discussion of this court's decision in Conners . Id. at ¶¶ 18–19. The majority observed that the plaintiff in Conners had sought reinstatement, back pay, and other equitable relief under the predecessor statute to CADA. Id. at ¶ 19. In the majority's view, it was the equitable and non-compensatory nature of this relief that had led this court to conclude that such claims were not subject to the CGIA. Id.
¶17 The division majority then proceeded to distinguish Conners from the present case, noting that here, Houchin was seeking compensatory damages, including back pay, front pay, and pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensatory damages, as well as other equitable relief. Id. at ¶ 20. In the majority's view, under Conners 's plain language, Houchin's damages claims sought compensatory relief for personal injuries suffered as a consequence of prohibited conduct and were therefore barred by the CGIA. Id. at ¶ 21.
¶18 In so concluding, the majority recognized the anomalous consequences of its own analysis, and in particular the fact that Houchin's claims for certain equitable relief were not barred by the CGIA while his claims seeking legal remedies were. Id. Although the division opined that this result did not seem logical or equitable, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial