Garcia v. Department of Highways, 84CA1056
| Decision Date | 12 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84CA1056,84CA1056 |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Eddie G. GARCIA, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS of the State of Colorado; State Personnel Board of the State of Colorado, and the individual members thereof, to wit: Jan Knoop, Tony Arguello, Raymond C. Delisle, Francis F. Kethcart, and Randall C. Mustain-Wood, Respondents. . I |
Valerie McNaughton, Denver, for petitioner.
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Steven A. Chavez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents.
Petitioner, Eddie G. Garcia, seeks review of a State Personnel Board (Board) order which terminated his employment with the Colorado Department of Highways (Department). We affirm.
Petitioner was employed as a traffic signal technician for the Department. After allegations arose that he had turned off a traffic light in retaliation for what he believed to be inadequate police work in finding his runaway daughter, the Department dismissed him for willful misconduct.
Petitioner appealed his dismissal to the Board. After a hearing held under the State of Colorado Personnel Rules, the hearing officer found that the allegations were substantiated by the evidence and that petitioner had engaged in willful misconduct, but that because of mitigating circumstances, in particular petitioner's prior work record, the Department had abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily in ordering his termination. The officer ordered that petitioner be suspended, rather than permanently dismissed.
The Department appealed the hearing officer's ruling to the Board, which upheld the hearing officer's factual findings but concluded that these findings supported the Department's original dismissal order and were thus not arbitrary and capricious. The Board therefore reversed the hearing officer's conclusions of ultimate fact, and ordered that petitioner's dismissal be reinstated. Petitioner seeks review of that order.
Petitioner contends that the Board applied an improper standard of review, failed to follow statutorily required procedures, and reached a decision which was unsupported by the evidence. We disagree.
The statutory standard for dismissal in cases involving state personnel is provided by the Colo. Const., art. XII, § 13, and the State Personnel System Act, § 24-50-125(1), C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol. 10). Appeals from such disciplinary actions are to be addressed to the Board, and a hearing before the Board or a Board-appointed hearing officer may be held. Section 24-50-125.4(1) and (3), C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.).
The proper standard of review of the hearing officer's decision is set forth in § 24-4-105(15)(b), C.R.S. (1982...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Renteria v. Department of Labor and Employment, 93CA1280
...basis for the conclusion that the Department acted in bad faith are not against the weight of the evidence. See Garcia v. Department of Highways, 713 P.2d 420 (Colo.App.1985). Specifically, the weight of the evidence supports the finding that Renteria's supervisor determined to create a new......
-
Cba Ethics Committee Opinion
...another, properly screened, prosecutor may question the target defendant's husband about his wife's alleged co-conspirators); Ranum, 713 P.2d at 420 (discussed in a parenthetical above); Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., 335 N.W.2d 720,731-732 (Minn. 1983) (court approves Chinese Wall in private......