City of Hutchinson for and on Behalf of Human Relations Commission of Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, Kansas Office of Kansas State Employment Service

• Decision Date: 08 December 1973
• Docket Number: No. 47005,47005
• Citation: 213 Kan. 399,517 P.2d 117
• Parties: , 13 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 339, 6 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9013 CITY OF HUTCHINSON, Kansas, a municipal corporation, For and on Behalf of the HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION OF HUTCHINSON, Kansas, Appellant, v. The HUTCHINSON, KANSAS OFFICE OF the KANSAS STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE and Lawrence M. Forney, Appellees.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 117

517 P.2d 117

213 Kan. 399, 13 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 339,

6 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9013

CITY OF HUTCHINSON, Kansas, a municipal corporation, For and on Behalf of the HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION OF HUTCHINSON, Kansas, Appellant, v. The HUTCHINSON, KANSAS OFFICE OF the KANSAS STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE and Lawrence M. Forney, Appellees.

No. 47005.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Dec. 8, 1973.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The Employment Security Law (K.S.A. 44-701 et seq., as amended) is complete within itself and provides its own procedures. The law is administered by the State Labor Commissioner. Actions brought by or against the agency involving employment service activities are brought in the name of the commissioner.

2. Under K.S.A.1972 Supp. 44-714 the State Labor Commissioner has power and authority to adopt, amend, or rescind such rules and regulations to administer 3. Local officials and employees of the Kansas State Employment Service in charge of administering local public employment offices in the state established by the State Labor Commissioner are required to comply with the rules and regulations adopted by the State Labor Commissioner.

the Employment Security Law as he deems necessary.

4. Service of process is made upon a governmental agency of the state, when subject to suit, by delivering a copy of the summons and petition to the attorney general or an assistant attorney general. (K.S.A. 60-304(d).)

5. The necessary parties in an action are those who must be included in an action either as plaintiffs or defendants unless there is a valid excuse for their nonjoinder. Indispensable parties are those who must be included in an action before it may properly go forward.

6. In an action by the City of Hutchinson for and on behalf of the Human Relations Commission of Hutchinson, Kansas, a creature of city ordinance, the Hutchinson, Kansas, office of the Kansas State Employment Service and its local official were named as parties defendant. The action seeks to require the defendants to divulge information in connection with an investigation conducted by the plaintiffs. On the defendants' motion to dismiss challenging the trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties defendant, the trial court dismissed the action on the ground that it had no jurisdiction of the subject matter. On appellate review it is held: The State Labor Commissioner, who was not made a party to the action, is an indispensable party, and the local official in charge of the Hutchinson State Employment Service office was not a necessary party. Hence, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the necessary parties to proceed in the matter.

7. Under the provisions of K.S.A. 1972 Supp. 60-212 the old distinction between a general and special appearance was abolished.

8. The judgment of a trial court which is correct in result will not be disturbed on appeal even though the reasons given by the trial court for its rendition are erroneous.

Charles K. Hyter, Hutchinson, argued the cause, and John A. Robinson, Hutchinson, was on the brief for the appellant.

F. Duane Roberts, Topeka, argued the cause, and was on the brief for the appellees.

David L. Ryan, Topeka, argued the cause, and Vern Miller, Atty. Gen., Charles S. Scott and Roger W. Lovett, EEOC Project Director of Kansas Commission on Civil Rights, Topeka, were with him on the brief for Kansas Commission on Civil Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, American G. I. Forum and Kansas Human Relations Association amicus curiae.

SCHROEDER, Justice:

This is an action by the City of Hutchinson for and on behalf of the Human Relations Commission of Hutchinson, Kansas to require the Hutchinson, Kansas, office of the Kansas State Employment Service to furnish records in connection with an investigation.

The petition alleged:

'1. That the plaintiff is a municipal corporation; that the defendant The Hutchinson Kansas Office of the Kansas State Employment Service is an agency of the State of Kansas; that the defendant, Lawrence M. Forney, is the supervisor of employment relations for the Hutchinson, Kansas Office of the Kansas State Employment Service.

'2. That on October 26, 1971, the Governing Body of the City of Hutchinson, Kansas adopted Ordinance No. 6132, being an ordinance creating a Human Relations Commission and prohibiting discrimination because of race, sex, color, religion, national origin or ancestry, in the City of Hutchinson, Kansas.

That Section 37-4 of the above referred to ordinance sets out the powers and duties of the Human Relations Commission of Hutchinson, Kansas, and contains in part the following language, to-wit:

"The Commission shall have the following functions, powers, duties and responsibilities:

'a. To receive, initiate, investigate, pass upon and attempt to conciliate all complaints alleging discrimination, segregation or separation in employment because of race, sex, religion, color, national origin or ancestry; or in public accommodations and housing because of race, religion, color, national origin or ancestry.

'b. In conducting an investigation the Commission shall after due notice have access at all reasonable times to premises, records, documents and other evidence or possible sources of evidence and may examine, record and copy such materials and take and record the testimony or statements of such persons as are reasonably necessary for the furtherance of the investigation. In the case of refusal of any person to comply with access to information set forth immediately above the Commission may request the District Court of Reno County, Kansas to order such person to comply with such request. Failure to obey the Court's order may be punished by the Court as contempt. . . .'

'3. That the Human Relations Commission of Hutchinson, Kansas, is investigating a complaint alleging discrimination because of race and as a part of said investigation and after due notice has requested certain information and records from the defendants.

'4. That defendants have refused to comply with plaintiff's request in violation of the above referred to ordinance by refusing to allow access to records in the defendant's possession necessary to the furtherance of the investigation by the Human Relations Commission of Hutchinson, Kansas.

'5. The records which the defendants have refused to allow access to and which are necessary for the furtherance of the investigation are as follows:

'a. An employee personnel roster showing defendant's employees by name, race, sex, job classification and date hired.

'b. Records showing all files of applicants seeking job referrals from the date of December 1, 1971 to February 1, 1972, showing name, race, sex, job classification sought, date referred, employer referred to, employment tests and results thereof and final disposition of applicants.

'c. Copies of or access to referral work sheets which relate to referrals made from December 1, 1971, to February 1, 1972, to the following employers:

Midland Credit Managment, Inc.

Valley Federal Savings & Loan Association of Hutchinson, Kansas

Horn & Buckle Restaurant

Master Machine Tool, Inc. and C-K, Inc.

'6. That plaintiff has made request upon the defendants for access to the above referred to records and for permission to copy the same and although defendants have cooperated to some extent in furnishing other records, the defendants have failed and refused to furnish access to the above records and/or refused the plaintiff an opportunity to record and copy the above referred to records.

'WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays the Court for an order of the Court ordering the defendants to comply with the plaintiff's request by furnishing access to and opportunity to record and copy the records referred to in this petition, for its costs herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.' (Emphasis added.)

Thereupon the attorney for the defendants filed a motion which in material part reads:

'Comes now F. Duane Roberts, Attorney for named defendants, and moves the Court for an Order:

'1. Dismissing the above-entitled action against the defendant, The Hutchinson, Kansas Office of the Kansas State Employment Service for the reason that no authority by statute, or otherwise, exists for said named defendant to sue or be sued in the courts of this state; that the Court lacks jurisdiction over its person; that the petition fails to state a claim against this defendant upon which relief can be granted because defendant, The Hutchinson, Kansas Office of the Kansas State Employment Service is operated and controlled by the State office of the Kansas Employment Security Division.

'2. Dismissing the above-entitled action against the defendant, Lawrence M. Forney, because he is not the real party in interest; that said Lawrence M. Forney, is an employee of the State of Kansas; that petition admits thta Lawrence M. Forney and his office is an Agency of the State of Kansas; that the petition fails to state a claim against him upon which relief can be granted.

* * *

* * *

'It is further moved for an order dismissing the above-entitled action because the above-entitled Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the persons of defendants in a direct action by plaintiff because this action is not an appeal from the municipal court; nor is it an appeal from a final order after a public hearing of the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights under the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq.).

'It is further moved that the Court dismiss the above-entitled action because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the persons; there is improper venue, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service of process.'

On the 17th day of March 1972, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing in connection with the...