Berger v. State Personnel Bd.
Decision Date | 01 July 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 920347,920347 |
Citation | 502 N.W.2d 539 |
Parties | 62 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 754 Jerri A. BERGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD and North Dakota State Soil Conservation Committee, Defendants and Appellees. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Fleck, Mather & Strutz, Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellant; argued by Scott K. Porsborg.
John J. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., State Capitol, Bismarck, for defendants and appellees.
In this case, we address the issue of the authority of the State Personnel Board to award attorney's fees to someone who is not now and has never been a state employee.
Jerri A. Berger appeals from a district court judgment affirming the State Personnel Board's ruling that attorney's fees are not available to a prevailing party in a sex discrimination claim brought before the Board. We affirm the denial of attorney's fees to Berger.
Berger was a full-time cartographic aide, employed by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in Bismarck. Although a federal employee, Berger worked in the offices of the North Dakota State Soil Conservation Committee (State Soil Conservation Committee) and was supervised by State Soil Conservation Committee employees. Berger applied for an Engineering Technician I position with the State Soil Conservation Committee when her employer, the United States Department of Agriculture, decided to eliminate her position. Eleven people, including Berger, interviewed for the job. Although she was highly rated, she was not selected. Claiming sex discrimination, she appealed the State Soil Conservation Committee hiring decision to the State Personnel Board. 1 A hearing officer, appointed by the Board, found that the State Soil Conservation Committee had discriminated against Berger on the basis of her sex and recommended that "the State Personnel Board instate Jerri Berger in an Engineering Technician I position within the State Soil Conservation Service...." Apparently, the State Personnel Board adopted this recommendation by order on April 14, 1992. 2 And, apparently, Berger having taken private sector employment, declined instatement in the position. The Board awarded Berger $7,580.52 in back pay and benefits. The Board rejected Berger's claim for attorney's fees, citing a lack of statutory authority to make such an award. The Board did not indicate if it would grant attorney's fees if it had the authority to do so.
Berger appealed to the district court, solely on the issue of attorney's fees. The district court affirmed the Board's order.
Berger appeals arguing that N.D.C.C. Sec. 54-44.3-07(3) empowers the Personnel Board to award attorney's fees within the scope of the clause "the board may order any needed remedy." In interpreting this clause, Berger says we should look to N.D.C.C. Sec. 14-02.4-20, which provides that attorney's fees may be awarded by the courts in discrimination cases brought under North Dakota's Human Rights Act. 3 Alternatively, Berger argues that attorney's fees can be awarded under N.D.C.C. Sec. 28-32-21.1(1), part of the Administrative Agencies Practices Act, because the State Soil Conservation Committee acted "without substantial justification."
N.D.C.C. Sec. 28-32-19 sets the standard for reviewing an appeal from an administrative agency decision. 4 We review the decision of the agency, not the decision of the district court. Schadler v. Job Service North Dakota, 361 N.W.2d 254, 256 (N.D.1985). We affirm unless we find:
N.D.C.C. Sec. 28-32-19. Questions of law are fully reviewable. Kallhoff v. North Dakota Workers' Comp. Bureau, 484 N.W.2d 510, 512 (N.D.1992).
In Hammond v. North Dakota State Personnel Board, 332 N.W.2d 244 (N.D.1983), this Court wrestled with an ambiguous N.D.C.C. ch. 54-44.3 to determine the scope of the State Personnel Board's authority to hear appeals. "[W]e believe the legislative intent was to authorize an appeal mechanism for all classified state employees through which they could obtain a review of personnel actions including dismissals." Hammond at 250.
Since Hammond, the legislature has replaced the ambiguity by spelling out in unambiguous language the exact scope of the Personnel Board's authority to hear appeals. The 1991 legislature amended the Personnel Board's authority by enacting a new N.D.C.C. Sec. 54-44.3-07(3) to provide that the Board shall:
(Emphasis added.)
Berger's reliance on this subsection is misplaced. By its own terms, the subsection and its "any needed remedy" clause are limited to appeals "by nonprobationary employees." Berger is not now, nor was she, a state employee. Berger does not fall within the necessary category and the Board could not award Berger attorney's fees under the subsection. Additionally, and necessarily, we conclude that the Board did not have authority to hear Berger's appeal. The Board's authority to hear appeals is limited to "nonprobationary employees" and its decisions limited to issues between "employer and employee." An administrative body has the adjudicatory jurisdiction conferred by statute and jurisdiction must meet the basic mandatory provisions of statute before jurisdiction is established. 5 Schwind v. Director, Dept. of Transp., 462 N.W.2d 147, 150 (N.D.1990). Even a long-established administrative policy must be set aside if it violates the intent of statute. Smith v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 447 N.W.2d 250, 262 (N.D.1989). Administrative regulation may not exceed statutory authority and regulation which goes beyond what the legislature has authorized is void. Moore v. North Dakota Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 374 N.W.2d 71, 74 (N.D.1985). Berger was entitled to seek relief through the district court under North Dakota's Human Rights Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 14-02.4. If she prevailed, the court could award reasonable attorney's fees under N.D.C.C. Sec. 14-02.4-20.
We appropriately do not reach the issue of whether nonprobationary state employees could be awarded attorney's fees under the subsection.
Berger also argues that N.D.C.C. Sec. 28-32-21.1 gives the Board authority to award attorney's fees.
N.D.C.C. Sec. 28-32.21.1 provides, in part:
Berger asserts that the record clearly demonstrates the State Soil Conservation Committee acted "without substantial justification" in discriminating against her. Consequently, she is entitled to attorney's fees under N.D.C.C. Sec. 28-32-21.1(1). Her argument, however, is misplaced.
Section 28-32-21.1, N.D.C.C., refers to a court's power to award attorney's fees, not an agency's. Subsection 1 refers to a "civil judicial proceeding." An administrative proceeding before the State Personnel Board is not a civil judicial proceeding. Subsection 2 states that "[t]his section applies to an administrative or civil judicial proceeding brought by a party not an administrative agency against an administrative agency for judicial review of a final agency order...." The State Personnel Board does not perform judicial review of final agency orders. The Board cannot award attorney's fees under N.D.C.C. Sec. 28-32-21.1. For N.D.C.C. Sec. 28-32-21.1 judicial review, in this case, the administrative agency is the State Personnel Board, not the State Soil Conservation Committee.
The judgment of the district court upholding the State Personnel Board's denial of attorney's fees is affirmed.
My heart is with the dissent, but I believe the majority has correctly analyzed and construed the relevant law, particularly NDCC 54-44.3-07(3). I agree with the dissent that it is indeed "futile, inefficient and frustrating" to "evi...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hecker v. Stark County Social Service Bd.
... ... , such requisites are not deemed provided by any public agency, office, or department of the State of North Dakota, or of any other state, or of the United States. 'Special needs' include, but are ... Berger v. State Personnel Board, 502 N.W.2d 539 (N.D.1993). An administrative agency does not have the ... ...
-
Vukelic v. Bartz, No. Al-01-146.
... ... Sagsveen in his individual capacity as the former North Dakota State Health Officer, Defendants ... No. Al-01-146 ... United States District Court, D. North ... The Health Department had experienced a number of personnel changes since Sagsveen became State Health Officer in February 1998. In late December 1998, Vukelic ... Berger v. State Personnel Bd., 502 N.W.2d 539, 541 (1993) (emphasis added). Thus, under state law, ... ...
-
Little v. Graff
... ... Elaine LITTLE, Director of the Department of Corrections and ... Rehabilitation, State of North Dakota, Petitioner, ... The Honorable Benny A. GRAFF, Judge of the District Court, ... He is mistaken. Berger v. State Personnel Board, 502 N.W.2d 539, 542 (N.D.1993) ("Even a long-established administrative ... ...
-
Northern X-Ray Co., Inc. v. State By and Through Hanson, X-RAY
... ... Moreover, we will not defer to even a long-standing agency interpretation that is contrary to the intent of the legislature. See Berger v. State Personnel Board, 502 N.W.2d 539, 542 (N.D.1993) ["Even a long-established administrative policy must be set aside if it violates the intent ... ...