Colo. Judicial Dep't v. Colo. Judicial Dep't Pers. Bd. of Review

• Decision Date: 10 June 2021
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals No. 20CA0161
• Citation: 2021 COA 82,495 P.3d 355
• Parties: COLORADO JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLORADO JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL BOARD OF REVIEW, Defendant-Appellee, and Concerning Abbey Dickerson, Intervenor-Appellee.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

495 P.3d 355

2021 COA 82

COLORADO JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. COLORADO JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL BOARD OF REVIEW, Defendant-Appellee,andConcerning Abbey Dickerson, Intervenor-Appellee.

Court of Appeals No. 20CA0161

Colorado Court of Appeals, Division V.

Announced June 10, 2021

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Michael T. Kotlarczyk, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Amy R. Lopez, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee

Roseman Law Offices, LLC, Barry D. Roseman, Denver, Colorado, for Intervenor-Appellee

Opinion by JUDGE J. JONES

¶ 1 The Colorado Supreme Court, acting pursuant to article VI, section 5 of the Colorado Constitution and section 13-3-105, C.R.S. 2020, promulgated rules — the Colorado Judicial System Personnel Rules (Personnel Rules) — creating a personnel classification system and setting forth procedures for appointing and removing court personnel. As relevant to this case, these rules establish a process for a Judicial Department employee to challenge the termination of her employment with the branch. The last step in that process is an appeal to the Judicial Department Personnel Board of Review (Board).

¶ 2 The question presented in this case is whether the Board's decision resolving such an appeal may be challenged in district court under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). We answer that question "no." As a result, we affirm the district court's judgment dismissing the Eighteenth Judicial District's complaint against the Board for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.¹

I. Background

¶ 3 The Eighteenth Judicial District (District) terminated Abbey Dickerson's employment as a probation officer because, it said, she had violated department confidentiality and use of social media policies. She appealed to the Board. Consistent with the applicable rules (discussed in detail below), the Board appointed a hearing officer to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Following the hearing, the hearing officer determined that although Ms. Dickerson had violated probation department confidentiality and use of social media policies, the District's decision to terminate her employment was arbitrary and capricious. The hearing officer reduced the discipline to an unpaid ninety-day suspension.

¶ 4 The District appealed the hearing officer's decision to the Board. The Board upheld the hearing officer's decision.

¶ 5 Unsatisfied, the District filed a complaint against the Board under Rule 106(a)(4) in Denver District Court challenging the Board's decision as an abuse of discretion.² Ms. Dickerson intervened in the case.

¶ 6 The Board moved to dismiss the complaint under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It argued that the application and interpretation of the Personnel Rules are the exclusive province of the Colorado Supreme Court, and that the Board is not a body subject to Rule 106(a)(4). Ms. Dickerson joined in the Board's motion to dismiss, arguing in addition that the Board isn't a "lower judicial body" within the meaning of Rule 106(a)(4) because it is effectively at the same level as a district court and that, because personnel decisions are made by the district court, allowing a district court to review a Board decision would impermissibly allow a district court to adjudicate its own or another district court's personnel decision.

¶ 7 The District responded that the Board is a "governmental body" and a "lower judicial body" within the meaning of Rule 106(a)(4), no statute creates an exception to the district court's broad statutory jurisdiction for cases such as this, nothing in the Personnel Rules bars Rule 106(a)(4) review of a Board decision, and to read the Personnel Rules as barring such review would violate employees’ due process rights.

¶ 8 The district court agreed with the Board and Ms. Dickerson. It ruled that the Board is neither a "governmental body" nor a "lower judicial body" within the meaning of Rule 106(a)(4) ; the Personnel Rules bar any further appeal from a Board decision; and, because the District is a district court, to allow a Rule 106(a)(4) action in these cases would impermissibly allow one district court to review the actions of another. Thus, the court concluded that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and it dismissed the case with prejudice.³

II. Standard of Review

¶ 9 Normally in an appeal of a Rule 106(a)(4) case, we review whether "the [governmental] body or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, based on the evidence in the record before the defendant body or officer." Langer v. Bd. of Comm'rs , 2020 CO 31, ¶ 12, 462 P.3d 59 (quoting Ad Two, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver , 9 P.3d 373, 376 (Colo. 2000), in turn quoting C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) ). And in doing that, "we sit in the same position as the district court." Id.

¶ 10 But this appeal is different. No party asks us to review the Board's decision. Rather, the District asks us to review the district court's decision that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. When, as in this case, the challenge to jurisdiction doesn't involve any disputed facts, we review the district court's determination of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Jim Hutton Educ. Found. v. Rein , 2018 CO 38M, ¶ 17, 418 P.3d 1156 ; Tulips Invs., LLC v. State ex rel. Suthers , 2015 CO 1, ¶ 11, 340 P.3d 1126.

¶ 11 Our resolution of that issue in this case turns on interpretations of various court rules.⁴ We also review such matters de novo. People ex rel. Rein v. Meagher , 2020 CO 56, ¶ 23, 465 P.3d 554.

¶ 12 In interpreting court rules, we use the same tools of construction that we use when we interpret statutes. Id. In determining the meaning of a court rule, we first look to the words and phrases used, ascribing to each its plain and ordinary meaning. People v. Vanness , 2020 CO 18, ¶ 17, 458 P.3d 901. We also consider the rule's language as a whole and in context. See Willhite v. Rodriguez-Cera , 2012 CO 29, ¶ 9, 274 P.3d 1233 ; L & R Expl. Venture v. CCG, LLC , 2015 COA 49, ¶ 17, 351 P.3d 569. If, after using these tools, we decide that a court rule is unambiguous, we apply it as written, without employing other tools of construction. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Scholle , 2021 CO 20, ¶ 13, 484 P.3d 695 ; Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, L.L.C. v. Flood , 2012 CO 38, ¶ 30, 278 P.3d 348.

III. Discussion

¶ 13 To resolve the jurisdictional question before us, we must first answer this question: "Do the Personnel Rules, by their terms, preclude judicial review by a district court of a decision made by the Board?" If they do, our job is finished because any potential conflict between the more specific Personnel Rules, promulgated by the supreme court, and the more general Rule 106(a)(4), also promulgated by the supreme court, must be resolved by giving effect to the Personnel Rules. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. v. Zarlingo , 57 P.3d 736, 737 (Colo. 2002). But if they don't, we must answer a second question: "Is the Board's decision in a matter entrusted to it reviewable in district court under Rule 106(a)(4) ?" More specifically, "Is the Board's decision in such a case a decision by a ‘governmental body ... or any lower judicial body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions?’ " C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). If so, the district court has jurisdiction over this case. If not, it doesn't.

¶ 14 We hold that the Personnel Rules, by their terms, bar review of a Board decision by a district court. In light of that conclusion, we don't need to determine whether the Board is a "governmental body" or "lower judicial body" within the meaning of Rule 106(a)(4).

A. The Personnel Rules

¶ 15 The supreme court promulgated the Personnel Rules "pursuant to the authority vested by section 5(3) of article VI of the state constitution, and in fulfillment of the requirements of section 13-3-105, [C.R.S. 2020]." C.J.S.P.R. 2 (2018).⁵

Article VI, section 5(3) of the Colorado Constitution says that "[t]he supreme court shall appoint a court administrator and such other personnel as the court may deem necessary to aid the administration of the courts." Section 13-3-105 says that "[t]he supreme court, pursuant to section 5(3) of article VI of the state constitution, shall prescribe, by rule, a personnel classification plan for all courts of records to be funded by the state ...." § 13-3-105(1). That plan must include, as relevant to this case, "[t]he procedures for and the regulations governing the appointment and removal of court personnel." § 13-3-105(2)(f). It is therefore clear — and no party disputes — that the supreme court has sole authority over personnel matters within the Judicial Department, including the authority to oversee and make rules governing termination of Judicial Department employees’ employment.

¶ 16 The Personnel Rules promulgated by the supreme court govern a host of personnel matters — from hiring, classification, and compensation of employees to conditions and terms of employment and employee discipline and termination.⁶

¶ 17 C.J.S.P.R. 29 of the Personnel Rules concerns disciplinary actions, including "dismissal." See C.J.S.P.R. 29.C.1 (2018). The responsibility for imposing any disciplinary action is "vested in the Administrative Authority." C.J.S.P.R. 29.A.1 (2018). The Administrative Authority for a judicial district's employees (including probation department employees) is the Chief Judge of that judicial district. C.J.S.P.R. 6.A.4 (2018). Every Administrative Authority is "responsible to the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court for all personnel matters for all employees within the jurisdiction." C.J.S.P.R. 6.A.5 (2018).

¶ 18 If the Administrative Authority contemplates any disciplinary action against an employee, he or she must first give the employee an opportunity to respond or present mitigating evidence. C.J.S.P.R. 29.C.5 (2018). If, after doing so, the Administrative Authority decides to impose...