Prince v. Kan. Dep't of Labor
| Decision Date | 13 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 124,175 |
| Citation | 508 P.3d 1291 (Table) |
| Parties | Richard PRINCE Jr., Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Danielle N. Davey, of Sloan, Eisenbarth, Glassman, McEntire & Jarboe, L.L.C., of Lawrence, for appellant.
Glenn H. Griffeth, special assistant attorney general, Kansas Department of Labor, for appellee.
Before Bruns, P.J., Cline, J., and James L. Burgess, S.J.
This judicial review action traces its roots to a demotion letter sent by the Kansas Department of Labor (KDOL) to Richard Prince Jr., which was dated February 21, 2011. Prince appealed to the Civil Service Board, but the Board dismissed the appeal as untimely filed. Prince later sought review by the district court under the Kansas Judicial Review Act (KJRA), K.S.A 77-601 et seq., and the Board's order was reversed. As a result, this action was remanded to the Board for a ruling on the merits. On remand, the Board unanimously concluded that Prince had been unreasonably demoted. Accordingly, the Board ordered that Prince be reinstated by the KDOL to the same or similar position from which he was demoted and that he receives back pay as well as benefits that accrued until August 2012. Thereafter, the KDOL offered to reinstate Prince to another position.
Prince then filed a second judicial review action, and the district court once again remanded the matter to the Board. In so doing, the district court ordered that the Board make additional findings of fact and conclusions of law under K.S.A. 77-526(c). In particular, the district court found that "[t]he Board must first determine whether the offer regarding reinstatement complied with its order and would be sufficient to terminate liability for back wages and fringe benefits." On remand, the Board did not hold an evidentiary hearing but relied on the findings of fact from its previous order.
The Board issued an order in which it, again, determined that Prince's demotion was unreasonable and found that Prince should be paid benefits—including a longevity bonus and KPERS contributions—through August 2012. In addition, the Board found that the KDOL complied with its previous reinstatement order. Following the issuance of the Board's order, Prince sought judicial review for the third time. After considering oral and written arguments presented by the parties, the district court denied Prince's petition for judicial review. However, in so concluding, the district court noted several instances in which the Board's decision may have been incomplete or in which the supporting evidence may have been lacking.
On appeal, Prince challenges the Board's decision not to award benefits beyond August 31, 2012. In addition, Prince challenges the Board's determination that the KDOL complied with its order of reinstatement. The parties do not appeal from the Board's finding "that Prince was demoted and that such demotion was unreasonable." As a result, we affirm that portion of the Board's order. Even so, because there are remaining questions of fact, we once again remand this action to the Board. Specifically, we direct the Board to hold an evidentiary hearing to allow the parties to present additional evidence on the issue of reimbursement of benefits and on the issue of the KDOL's compliance with the Board's previous order of reinstatement.
The underlying facts in this judicial review action are set forth in Prince v. Kansas Dept. of Labor , No. 110,182, 2014 WL 1363532 (Kan. App. 2014) (unpublished opinion). As such, they will not be repeated in this opinion. Rather, we will focus on what has occurred since we first remanded this matter to the Civil Service Board. We note that the Kansas Supreme Court denied review of our prior opinion on August 28, 2014, and that a mandate was issued on September 2, 2014.
On October 30-31, 2017, the Board commenced a two-day evidentiary hearing to consider Prince's claims on the merits. During the hearing, the parties presented evidence regarding Prince's claims for lost wages and benefits including vacation, sick leave, health insurance, KPERS contributions, and longevity bonuses. During the hearing, Prince testified that he had accepted a contract position in Nebraska that had started on September 2, 2012. As a result, he stipulated that he was only seeking lost wages until August 31, 2012. However, Prince also testified that the contract position that he held until October 2017 did not include health insurance, sick leave, or vacation benefits. Consequently, Prince sought reimbursement for any benefits that would still be accruing in Kansas had he not been demoted.
Prince testified at the hearing that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) approached him in September 2012 regarding a possible position with the State. Although it is unclear from the record if the KDHE actually made a formal offer of employment, Prince testified: "I informed them that I had employment and I refused that position." Prince further testified that on October 2, 2017, less than a month before the evidentiary hearing, he had accepted a full-time position to serve as the Unemployment Insurance Benefits Coordinator for the State of Nebraska. Prince explained that he was, then, making $32.50 per hour plus benefits in his new position.
On March 23, 2018, the Board issued an order in which it unanimously found that Prince had been unreasonably demoted. The Board determined that "[t]he removal of Mr. Prince from his position as Training Coordinator and placement ... in a ‘Data Entry Operator’ position was a demotion ...." In reaching this conclusion, the Board reasoned that "[t]he position that Mr. Prince was moved into was most consistent with an Administrative Assistant classification, a position which, if properly classified, is ten pay grades lower than Mr. Prince's Public Service Administrator II position [and] it would have resulted in a reduction in pay."
The Board found that the appropriate remedy for the unreasonable demotion was for Prince to be reinstated to a position with the same or similar duties. The Board ordered that the KDOL pay Prince lost wages from August 2011 through August 2012, including any longevity bonus that may apply. The Board also ordered the KDOL to pay Prince for any sick and annual leave that had accrued before August 31, 2012. Additionally, the Board ordered the KDOL to make all KPERS contributions that would have been made during the same time period between August 2011 and August 2012.
On April 9, 2018, the KDOL notified Prince that it was reinstating him as a Public Service Administrator II in the position of Quality Assurance Coordinator and that he was to report for work on April 18, 2018. But the day before he was to report to this position, Prince moved the Board for a stay pending a decision on a motion for reconsideration that he had filed. The Board granted the stay, and a week later, it denied Prince's request for reconsideration.
A few days later, Prince filed his second petition for judicial review with the district court. On, December 20, 2018, the district court again remanded this matter to the Board. In the district court's order, it found that the Board's conclusion that Prince be reinstated should stand because it was not challenged by the parties. Still, the district court vacated the remedy portion of the Board's order. In doing so, the district court found that the Board "simply states that these remedies should be applied but does not point to any facts or reasons that support the decision."
As a result, the district court remanded Prince's case to the Board for additional fact-finding regarding the Board's decision to limit the period of Prince's benefits award from August 2011 through August 2012. In addition, the district court remanded Prince's case to allow the Board an opportunity to determine whether the Quality Assurance Coordinator position complied with the Board's previous reinstatement remedy. Specifically, the district court concluded that "[t]he Board must first determine whether the offer of reinstatement complied with its order and would be sufficient to terminate liability for back wages and fringe benefits." Although it appears that the district court may have anticipated that the Board would receive additional evidence on remand, the district court did not expressly order an evidentiary hearing.
As a result, this matter made its way back to the Board for a third time. On this occasion, the Board decided not to hold an evidentiary hearing or to receive additional evidence. Instead, the Board issued an order on March 10, 2020, discussing the evidence that had been previously admitted. Once again, the Board found that Prince had been unreasonably demoted; that he was entitled to the payment of lost wages from August 2011 through August 2012; and that he was entitled to reimbursement for annual leave, sick leave, and retirement benefits accrued during the same time period. The Board further found that the KDOL had complied with its previous order of reinstatement.
In particular, the Board made the following findings that are material to this appeal:
To continue reading
Request your trial