Brennan v. Department of Local Affairs, 87CA0639
| Decision Date | 25 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87CA0639,87CA0639 |
| Citation | 786 P.2d 426 |
| Parties | Kathleen BRENNAN, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS and State Personnel Board of the State of Colorado, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
C. Thomas Bastien, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee and cross-appellant.
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., and Neil L. Tillquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants-appellants and cross-appellees.
Opinion by Judge MARQUEZ.
Defendants, the Department of Local Affairs (Department) and the State Personnel Board (Board), appeal the district court judgment reversing a 1983 decision of the Board concerning the layoff of plaintiff, Kathleen Brennan, and remanding the matter to the Board for further proceedings. Plaintiff cross-appeals the district court judgment affirming the Board's 1986 decision on remand. We affirm.
Brennan was employed as a principal economist by the Department from February 1980, until she was laid off from that position in 1981, by which time she had become a certified employee. Her position and various other expenses had been funded by annual federal Economic Development Administration (EDA) grants in the amount of $105,000. The last annual grant began on September 1, 1980, and was to terminate on August 31, 1981. The layoff notice, dated July 27, 1981, stated:
The hearing officer found that there was a balance of at least $13,000 remaining in those funds and the record reflects that prior to the September layoff date the Department accepted an offer from EDA to amend the grant to extend through December 31, 1981. Pursuant to the amendment, the EDA provided the Department with an additional $35,000.
Upon Brennan's appeal of the layoff, a hearing officer found that there was no true lack of funds, and concluded that the layoff was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the hearing officer set aside the layoff notice and reinstated Brennan to her position with full pay and benefits from October 1, 1981, through the end of December 1981. By a ruling issued in 1983, the Board overturned that decision and reinstated the Department's decision, holding that the funds received after the original grant had expired were to be considered as new funds to which Brennan had no claim and that, therefore, the Department had the option to expend the funds for contract services.
The district court reversed the Board's decision, but remanded the case to the administrative agency for determination as to the availability of funds for Brennan's position for 1982. The defendants appeal that judgment.
On remand, a hearing officer ruled that Brennan had failed to establish that there were funds available for her position after January 1, 1982. The Board, in 1986, affirmed that decision, and Brennan appeals the subsequent ruling of the district court affirming the Board.
I.
Defendants contend that the Board properly overturned the hearing officer's initial decision reinstating Brennan to her former position, and that the district court's reversal of the Board's decision was unfounded and improper. We disagree.
The layoff notice stated that the action was being taken pursuant to Personnel Rule 9-2-1, 8 Code Colo. Reg. 801-1. That rule, as in effect on July 27, 1981, states:
(emphasis added)
The thrust of defendants' argument on appeal is that determination of the use of the new funds was a management decision. We reject this argument.
When a governmental agency promulgates rules governing the discharge of its employees, it must strictly comply with those rules. Mercer v. Board of County Commissioners, 671 P.2d 435 (Colo.App.1983).
Personnel Rule 9-2-1 states the sole conditions permitting layoffs and does not allow for such by means of ad hoc agency decisions to divert otherwise available funds away from existing personnel costs. Consonant with that rule, the notice to Brennan stated that the layoff was because of "the lack of funds resulting from the grant close-out," and accordingly, the Department was bound by the terms of that notice and cannot sustain the layoff on other grounds.
Review of the Department's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Velasquez v. Department of Higher Educ., 02CA1740.
...is context-specific, based on the particular constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions at issue. In Brennan v. Department of Local Affairs, 786 P.2d 426 (Colo.App.1989), a division of this court rejected the argument that an employee who had been laid off should not bear the burd......
-
ARTICLE 4 RULE MAKING AND LICENSING PROCEDURES BY STATE AGENCIES
...App. 1993). Hearing officer's decision held not contrary to weight of evidence and binding upon agency. Brennan v. Dept. of Local Affairs, 786 P.2d 426 (Colo. App. 1989). Unless contrary to the weight of the evidence, a hearing officer's determinations of evidentiary fact cannot be set asid......