Davis v. City of Cheyenne

• Decision Date: 21 April 2004
• Docket Number: No. 03-100.,03-100.
• Citation: 2004 WY 43,88 P.3d 481
• Parties: In the Matter of the Statement of Termination of Richard S. DAVIS, Appellant (Petitioner), v. CITY OF CHEYENNE, Appellee (Respondent).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

88 P.3d 481

2004 WY 43

In the Matter of the Statement of Termination of Richard S. DAVIS, Appellant (Petitioner), v. CITY OF CHEYENNE, Appellee (Respondent).

No. 03-100.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 21, 2004.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 2004.

Representing Appellant: J.C. DeMers, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: William G. Hibbler, Special Assistant City Attorney, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE and VOIGT, JJ., and YOUNG, D.J.

KITE, Justice.

[¶ 1] The City of Cheyenne (City) terminated Richard S. Davis (Davis) from his employment as transit manager after four years. Following a hearing, the Cheyenne personnel commission (commission) affirmed the termination decision. Mr. Davis sought review in district court, which affirmed the decision of the commission. Claiming the commission erred in several respects and its decision was not supported by substantial evidence, Mr. Davis appeals to this Court. We find no error and affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] Mr. Davis raises the following issues:

A. Did the Personnel Commission agency's failure to address numerous issues constitute an arbitrary and capricious action in violation of Appellant's right to a fair hearing?

B. Were the contested case proceedings conducted in a manner contrary to law or deny Appellant due process by considering allegations not specified in the notice of termination?

C. Did the Personnel Commission commit errors of law or violate its own rules and regulations to the detriment of Appellant?

D. Did the violation of its own rules by the City of Cheyenne deny Appellant due process by improperly determining that matters were final and non-appealable?

E. Did the Cheyenne Personnel Commission violate Appellant's First Amendment right to free speech or take action on the basis of other protected communications, thereby requiring reversal of its determination to approve the employment termination?

F. Were the agency findings supported by substantial evidence and sufficiently detailed as required by the Administrative Procedures Act?

G. Did the accumulation of error create a reasonable possibility that in the absence of error the outcome may have been more favorable to Appellant or result in damage to the integrity, reputation and fairness of the justice process?

[¶ 3] The City states the issues as follows:

I. Whether the City of Cheyenne's Personnel Commission violated Appellant's due process rights when it terminated his employment with the City.

II. Whether the decision of the Personnel Commission is based on substantial evidence.

III. Whether the City of Cheyenne denied Appellant's free speech rights.

IV. Whether the Personnel Commission properly declined to decide if Appellant's termination constituted a violation of federal law.

FACTS

[¶ 4] Mr. Davis was hired as the transit manager for the City in November 1997. He received written notification of his termination on December 3, 2001. Among the reasons given for his termination were failure to timely submit a report upon which federal grant money was dependent, allegations by female employees that he engaged in sexual harassment, allegations that he engaged in non-work related activities during work hours, unprofessional and antagonistic communication with the city attorney's office, failure to communicate effectively with his employees and his supervisor's loss of confidence in Mr. Davis' ability to effectively manage the transit division.

[¶ 5] In accordance with the personnel rules, Mr. Davis requested a hearing before the commission to contest the termination. A hearing was held on February 19, 2002. The commission heard the testimony of seven city employees, including Mr. Davis. After the hearing, on April 24, 2002, the commission issued findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order affirming Mr. Davis' termination.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 6] We review agency action following contested case hearings in accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2003), which provides:

(c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

...

(ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be:

(A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law;

...

(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.

State ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Legarda, 2003 WY 130, ¶ 9, 77 P.3d 708, ¶ 9 (Wyo.2003). Our review is also governed by the following standards:

We do not afford any special deference to the district court's decision when we review a matter initiated before an administrative agency. Rather, this court reviews the case as if it came directly from the administrative agency. Our review must focus on the evidence and consider the reasonableness of the agency's exercise of judgment while determining if the agency committed any errors of law. If the agency committed any errors of law, this court must correct them.

Further, in appeals where both parties submit evidence at the administrative hearing, appellate review is limited to application of the substantial evidence test. This court is required to review the entire record in making its ultimate determination on appeal. The substantial evidence test to be applied is as follows:

"In reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings. If the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must uphold the findings on appeal. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions. It is more than a scintilla of evidence." Newman [v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 91, ¶ 12, 49 P.3d 163, ¶ 12 (Wyo.2002)] (quoting State ex rel. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div. v. Jensen, 2001 WY 51, ¶ 10, 24 P.3d 1133, ¶ 10 (Wyo.2001)).

Even when the factual findings are found to be sufficient under the substantial evidence test, ... this court may be required to apply the arbitrary and capricious standard as a "safety net" to catch other agency action which prejudiced a party's substantial right to the administrative proceeding or which might be contrary to the other WAPA review standards.

Id., ¶ 10. To survive judicial review, the record of a contested agency action must contain such factual findings as would permit a court to follow the agency's reasoning from the evidentiary facts on record to its eventual legal conclusions. Newman v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 91, ¶ 16, 49 P.3d 163, ¶ 16 (Wyo.2002). Similarly, a contested case hearing must provide, and the record of that proceeding must document, information sufficient to the making of a reasonable decision. Absent such information, the agency decision must be set aside. Id.

[¶ 7] Of further relevance to our review, we have said:

In contested cases conducted before administrative agencies, the deference that normally is accorded the findings of fact by a trial court is extended to the administrative agency, and we do not adjust the decision of the agency unless it is clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence on record. This is so because, in such an instance, the administrative body is the trier of fact and has the duty to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses.

Id., ¶ 26. With these standards in mind, we address Mr. Davis' claims in the order he raises them.

DISCUSSION

1. Denial of due process by agency's failure to address Mr. Davis' proposed findings and conclusions

[¶ 8] Mr. Davis claims the commission violated his right to due process in not addressing his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in its written decision. After the hearing, the commission ordered Mr. Davis and the City to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The commission did not incorporate Mr. Davis' proposed findings and conclusions in its written decision and he asserts there is nothing in the record demonstrating it considered them. He further asserts the record is silent as to the commission's reasons for rejecting them. He claims the absence of such from the record shows the commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in upholding his termination.

[¶ 9] The City contends the commission had no obligation to adopt Mr. Davis' proposed findings and conclusions and was entitled to give them the weight it felt they deserved. The City further asserts there is no authority for Mr. Davis' argument that an agency violates due process or acts arbitrarily and capriciously by declining to adopt a party's findings and conclusions. Finally, the City argues there is no evidence that the commission did not consider Mr. Davis' findings and conclusions in reaching its decision.

[¶ 10] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-110 (LexisNexis 2003) addresses findings of fact and conclusions of law made by an agency following contested case hearings.¹ That section provides in relevant part:

A final decision or order adverse to a party in a contested case shall be in writing or dictated into the record. The final decision shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law separately stated. Findings of fact if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings....

Applying this provision, we have...