Arambarri v. Armstrong
| Decision Date | 08 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 38351.,38351. |
| Citation | 152 Idaho 734,274 P.3d 1249 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert Nicholas ARAMBARRI, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Richard ARMSTRONG, Director of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Defendant–Respondent. |
Douglas J. Balfour, Chtd., Pocatello, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Mark V. Withers argued.
Robert Arambarri ("Arambarri") was Regional Director of Region VI with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare ("the Department"). In this capacity, he was a non-classified, at-will employee serving at the pleasure of the Director of the Department ("the Director"). Due to budget reductions, four of the seven regional director positions, which included Arambarri's position, were eliminated by the Director. Responsibility for the seven administrative regions was consolidated in the remaining three regional directors. Arambarri contends that the Director did not have the statutory authority to abolish those positions. He further contends that the Idaho Board of Health and Welfare ("the Board") did not properly concur with a formal vote in the elimination of the four regional director positions pursuant to I.C. § 56–1002(3).
Idaho Code section 56–1002(3) provides that "[e]ach substate administrative region shall be headed by a regional director who shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the [D]irector with the concurrence of the [B]oard." Traditionally, the Director has appointed seven regional directors to administer the seven administrative regions. Due to budget constraints, the Legislature required the Department to reduce its personnel budget by five percent for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2009. The Director did this by "reducing the workforce of [the Department] by [twenty-three] positions through layoffs and abolishment of certain positions, by trimming hours in three additional positions, by holding approximately [twenty-seven] additional positions vacant for the fiscal year, and by implementing furloughs for employees." In order to preserve the critical service delivery positions that Idaho citizens depend on within the Department, the Director also focused his budget cuts on "streamlining administration."
As a result of the Director's streamlining efforts, he abolished the positions of four of the seven regional directors. In relating his rationale for his streamlining efforts to the Board on May 21, 2009, the Director stated that:
In an effort to reduce the personnel budget, the decision has been made to hub responsibilities of the Regional Directors. The positions will be cut to three, which will reduce the personnel by $500,000. Community development activities will lessen, but maintaining the three positions will ensure some support at the local level.
Responsibility for the seven administrative regions was consolidated in the remaining three regional directors. Thus, all seven administrative regions still exist and each administrative region is headed by a regional director, but each regional director heads more than one region.
Five voting Board members and one non-voting member of the Board submitted affidavits which assert that they concurred with the Director's streamlining decision at a Board meeting by not objecting so long as three regional directors remained to head the seven administrative regions. They also assert that it is the general "practice of the Board for [its] members to express objections or concerns if they do not concur with an action or plan promulgated by the Director." The Board includes seven voting members and four non-voting members. The affidavit of Stephen Weeg ("Weeg"), a voting member of the Board, who was present at that meeting, contends that the Board members did not concur with the decision of the Director because no vote was taken at the Board meeting. Instead, the Director merely reported his decision to cut the four regional director positions to the Board. In asserting that a formal vote should have been taken at that meeting in order to eliminate those positions, Weeg points out that, in the past, when the Director nominated a candidate for a regional director position, the Board was required to take a formal vote.
Since January of 1991, Arambarri was Regional Director of Region VI. In this position, Arambarri was a non-classified, at-will employee. He was not subject to a contract of employment. On June 12, 2009, Arambarri's position was abolished due to the Director's streamlining efforts.
Arambarri was planning on retiring in the summer of 2010. After the consolidation of his position, Arambarri allegedly opted to retire early,1 while the other three regional directors were laid-off. Even though Arambarri notified the Department of his intent to retire and accepted PERSI retirement benefits, Arambarri later filed for unemployment benefits contending that he was laid-off from his position.
Arambarri filed his Complaint on January 27, 2010, contending that the Director violated I.C. § 56–1002(3) by consolidating the seven administrative regions. In his Complaint, Arambarri seeks reinstatement for all the eliminated regional director positions and damages for his lost wages and benefits. The Director filed his Motion for Summary Judgment on August 6, 2010, contending that the plain meaning of I.C. § 56–1002(3) asserts that he has the authority to eliminate the regional director positions and that the Board properly concurred with the Director's streamlining efforts.
On September 15, 2010, Arambarri filed his Motion to Strike, which contends that the affidavits of the Director and David Taylor ("Taylor"), Deputy Director for Support Services with the Department, are barred pursuant to I.R.C.P. 56(e) because they contain inadmissible hearsay, statements that are not based on personal knowledge or competency, and statements that make legal conclusions. The affidavits of the Director and Taylor reiterate, among other things, that it is their opinion that the four regional director positions were eliminated due to budget cuts and that the Director has the authority to eliminate those positions. They further assert that it is their belief that the Board concurred with the Director's decision by not objecting so long as three of the regional directors remained to administer the seven administrative regions.
On November 12, 2010, the district court issued its Memorandum Decision and Order granting the Director's Motion for Summary Judgment and holding that there was nothing in the plain meaning of I.C. § 56–1002(3) to indicate that each administrative region must be headed by an individual regional director. The Memorandum Decision and Order also denied Arambarri's Motion to Strike. Thereafter, the district court filed its Judgment on November 18, 2010. Arambarri timely filed his Notice of Appeal on December 2, 2010.
1. Whether Arambarri has standing and whether his claim is moot?
2. Whether the Director has the statutory authority to eliminate the regional director positions?
3. Whether the district court erred when it denied Arambarri's Motion to Strike the affidavits of Armstrong and Taylor?
4. Whether Arambarri is entitled to attorney's fees on appeal?
5. Whether the Director is entitled to attorney's fees on appeal?
Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c). "If the evidence reveals no disputed issues of material fact, then only a question of law remains, over which this Court exercises free review." Watson v. Weick, 141 Idaho 500, 504, 112 P.3d 788, 792 (2005).
The Director contends that Arambarri does not have standing to assert his claim that the Director did not comply with I.C. § 56–1002(3) because Arambarri is an at-will employee, who can only assert citizen standing. The Director also contends that even if Arambarri can allege sufficient injury in fact and traceability, his claims are either moot or are not redressable because this Court cannot require the Director to reappoint an at-will employee. Furthermore, even if Arambarri were reinstated, he would likely not keep his job long because of his status as an at-will employee and because the majority of the voting Board members submitted affidavits which assert that they concurred with the Director's decision by not objecting.
Neither the district court nor the Director addressed the issues of standing or mootness in the prior proceedings. Thus, these issues are raised for the first time on appeal. "Generally issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered." State v. Rogers, 140 Idaho 223, 227, 91 P.3d 1127, 1131 (2004). However, because the issues of standing and mootness are jurisdictional, they can be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal. See Hawkins v. Bonneville Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 151 Idaho 228, 231, 254 P.3d 1224, 1227 (2011) ; In re Doe I, 145 Idaho 337, 340, 179 P.3d 300, 303 (2008). This Court also has a duty to raise the issues of standing and mootness sua sponte. Johnson v. Blaine Cnty., 146 Idaho 916, 924, 204 P.3d 1127, 1135 (2009) ; In re Doe I, 145 Idaho at 340, 179 P.3d at 303.
1. Standing
In order to satisfy the requirement of standing, the petitioner must allege or demonstrate a distinct palpable injury in fact; that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and that there is a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury. Martin v. Camas Cnty. ex rel. Bd. of Comm'rs, 150 Idaho 508, 513, 248 P.3d 1243, 1248 (2011) ; Schneider v. Howe, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial