Kirchner v. Cnty. of Nobles

• Decision Date: 08 February 2016
• Docket Number: A15-0794
• Citation: Kirchner v. Cnty. of Nobles, A15-0794 (Minn. App. Feb 08, 2016)
• Parties: Heather Kirchner, Relator, v. County of Nobles, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Heather Kirchner, Relator, v. County of Nobles, Respondent.

A15-0794

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

February 8, 2016

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3(2014).

Remanded; motion denied

Hooten, Judge

Ross, Judge, dissenting

Nobles County Administration

Marshall H. Tanick, Teresa J. Ayling, Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, Edina, Minnesota (for relator)

Ann R. Goering, Timothy A. Sullivan, Ratwick, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Chutich, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Hooten, Judge.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

HOOTEN, Judge

In this certiorari appeal, relator seeks review of the alleged termination of her employment with respondent, as well as respondent's denial of post-termination remedies.Respondent has moved to quash the writ of certiorari, arguing that relator voluntarily resigned and that there is no quasi-judicial decision to support this court's exercise of jurisdiction.We conclude that the county's decision that relator was not entitled to post-termination remedies because she voluntarily resigned is a quasi-judicial decision subject to certiorari review.Because there were irregularities in the county's procedures and the record is insufficient for our review, we remand for a hearing and development of the record as to these issues and whether relator is entitled to pre-termination and post-termination procedures.

FACTS

This writ of certiorari was filed by relator Heather Kirchner, who was employed by respondentCounty of Nobles as a family and children's social services supervisor from February 27, 2012, until March 16, 2015, the date that she claims she was effectively terminated from her employment.Relator challenges the decision of the county that she voluntarily resigned her position and that she is not entitled to any of the due process procedures associated with termination of employment for cause.She claims that she was terminated or forced to resign and that the county, in violation of its policies and her constitutional right to due process, failed to provide her with pre-termination and post-termination hearings.

The Nobles County Personnel Policy handbook provides guidelines for the discipline and termination of county employees.The handbook requires that "[t]he degree of discipline administered will depend on the severity of the infraction and shall be in accordance with any applicable County policies and procedures as well as local, state or federal laws and regulations" and that "[a]ll discipline shall be for just cause."The mostsevere discipline, discharge, may be warranted for "serious" or "substantial reasons" or for "less serious" offenses if "the offenses have been documented by the supervisor and appropriate behavioral changes have not resulted from previous progressive disciplinary action."

The handbook provides the following procedures for discharge."[P]rior to the . . . discharge of any employee," the employee is to be provided, in writing, notice of the reasons for the anticipated discharge and evidence supporting those reasons, an opportunity to respond to the charges with counsel or other representation at a "pre-disciplinary hearing" so that the employee may set forth, orally or in writing, "why the proposed action should not be taken."After the pre-disciplinary hearing, the county is to provide written notice to the employee, which includes the charges against the employee and a general statement of the findings of the hearing.A discharged employee then has a right of appeal to the county's personnel board of appeals, and will be able to present documentation "as to the events and reasons why the discharge may have been unjust."

On March 16, 2015, relator, without any prior notice, was called into a meeting with her supervisor, community services director Stacie Golombiecki, and county administrator Tom Johnson, who presented her with a letter signed by Johnson stating: "This letter constitutes formal notice to you that your employment with Nobles County is hereby terminated, effective immediately."The letter identifies as the bases for relator's discharge that (1) despite multiple reprimands, she continued to treat county employees disrespectfully and unprofessionally; (2)she failed to respond to truancy referrals in a proper and timely manner; and (3)she failed to properly screen child protection reports.

The parties dispute what happened next.The county characterizes the March 16 letter as a "proposed termination letter" and asserts that the meeting was an opportunity for relator to address concerns about her job performance before the county made a final decision whether to terminate her employment.According to the county, upon being presented with the letter, relator spontaneously tendered her written resignation.Relator asserts that, at the March 16 meeting, she was given a choice between termination and resignation, and told that she would be able to receive a payout for her accrued vacation and sick time if she resigned.

Notwithstanding the factual dispute over her reasons for doing so, it is undisputed that during the meeting, relator handwrote on a sheet of paper: "Dear Board, I resign from my position as supervisor immediately."The next day, the human-resources director sent relator a letter accepting the resignation.

A few days later, relator submitted a letter to the county administrator, attempting to grieve her separation from employment and requesting that she be reinstated.Relator asserted that the county had failed to follow its policy for employee discipline, that the asserted bases for her termination were unfounded, and that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment.Johnson sent a responsive letter notifying relator that employees who had resigned were not entitled to grievance procedures.Relator then sent a letter to the county's personnel board of appeals requesting that it "look into the allegations in my grievance further."By this time, relator had obtained legal counsel, who also sent a letter to the personnel board of appeals, asserting that relator's resignation was not voluntary and that the county had violated its own policies and relator's constitutional due process rights.Counsel for the county sent a responsive letter, reiterating the county's position that relator had voluntarily resigned and therefore no appeal was available to her.

Relator filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, and the county moved to quash the writ.

DECISION

I.

The threshold issue in this case is whether this court has certiorari jurisdiction."Certiorari is an 'extraordinary remedy' only available to review judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and actions; conversely, it is not available to review legislative or administrative actions."Minn. Ctr. for Envtl. Advocacy v. Metro. Council, 587 N.W.2d 838, 842(Minn.1999)(MCEA).The "three indicia" of a quasi-judicial action are "(1) investigation into a disputed claim and weighing of evidentiary facts; (2) application of those facts to a prescribed standard; and (3) a binding decision regarding the disputed claim."Id.

It is well-established that a decision by a county to discharge an employee for cause is a quasi-judicial decision subject only to certiorari review.SeeWillis v. County of Sherburne, 555 N.W.2d 277, 282(Minn.1996);Dietz v. Dodge County, 487 N.W.2d 237, 239(Minn.1992).Relator challenges the decision of the county that she voluntarily resigned and therefore is not entitled to any post-termination grievance procedures.Relator claims that at the meeting with her supervisors on March 16, 2015, she was terminated without a pre-termination hearing and that her post-termination resignation was coerced.Relator claims that, because her resignation was coerced, it is to be treated as a dischargefor purposes of judicial review.See, e.g., Keyes v. District of Columbia, 372 F.3d 434, 439(D.C. Cir.2004);Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 167, 174(4th Cir.1988).

On these facts, we conclude that the only issue properly before us for review is whether the county erred by denying relator's request for post-termination remedies.See, e.g., Overseas Commodities Corp. v. Dockman, 389 N.W.2d 254, 257(Minn. App.1986)(dismissing appeal as premature when further review was available under city ordinance).In rejecting relator's attempts to appeal her separation from employment, the county, relying on its personnel policies, made a quasi-judicial decision that "[t]he County grievance procedure does not apply to resignations."This application of county policy to specific facts bears the indicia of quasi-judicial decision-making.SeeMCEA, 587 N.W.2d at 842;see alsoMeath v. Harmful Substance Comp. Bd., 550 N.W.2d 275, 279(Minn.1996)(holding that quasi-judicial decisions are "those administrative decisions which are based on evidentiary facts and which resolve disputed claims of rights").Accordingly, we conclude that this court has certiorari jurisdiction, and deny the motion to quash the writ.¹

II.

Relator argues that the county erred in denying relator any right to any pre-termination and post-termination hearings and, in doing so, violated her due process rights.On certiorari appeal from a quasi-judicial agency decision, we examine the record to review questions affecting jurisdiction, "the regularity of [the] proceedings, and, as to the merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it."Dietz, 487 N.W.2d at 239(quotation omitted);Anderson v. Comm'r of Health, 811 N.W.2d 162, 165(Minn. App.2012), review denied(Minn. Apr. 17, 2012)(quotation omitted).It is the obligation of the county or executive agency to create a sufficient record to prove that its actions were justified.Dokmo...