Romero v. Rossmiller, 79CA0313
| Decision Date | 06 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 79CA0313,79CA0313 |
| Citation | 603 P.2d 964,43 Colo.App. 215 |
| Parties | Tony A. ROMERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marian N. ROSSMILLER, Richard L. Hartman, and Francis Salter, all as Individuals and members of the Career Service Board, A. H. Abshire, Secretary to the Career Service Board and Personnel Director of the Career Service Authority, the Career Service Authority, and the Career Service Board, H. J. Copeland, Jr., Director and Aaron Lewis, Assistant Director, Public Office Buildings Division, Department of General Services, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, Defendants-Appellees. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Willard B. Rogers, Jr., Aurora, for plaintiff-appellant.
Max P. Zall, City Atty., Brian H. Goral and David L. Dickinson, Asst. City Attys., Denver, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiff brought this C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) action in the district court, seeking review of the Denver Career Service Board's decision dismissing him from his employment with the City and County of Denver. The district court affirmed the Board's decision, and also assessed costs against plaintiff. We affirm the district court with respect to plaintiff's dismissal, but reverse its assessment of costs.
There was ample evidence supporting the Board's finding that on May 27, 1977, plaintiff reported to work intoxicated, failed to perform his assigned duties, and struck his supervisor when confronted about his behavior. Nevertheless, citing Denver Career Service Rules, § 10-73(a), plaintiff argues that the Board acted beyond its authority in dismissing him without first considering standards for dismissal used in the private sector. Specifically, plaintiff sought to introduce various labor law decisions indicating that intoxication alone might not be a sufficient ground for discharge.
Section 10-73(a) of the Career Service Rules does not require a hiring authority to make findings as to dismissal standards in the private sector. It only requires that it consider such standards. There is nothing in the record indicating that the Board, in the exercise of its administrative expertise, did not consider these standards. See Edwards v. Department of Revenue, Colo.App., 592 P.2d 1345 (1978). And, in any event, plaintiff's discharge was not premised solely on intoxication.
We also reject plaintiff's argument that the Board erred in limiting the cross-examination of plaintiff's supervisor. The scope of such examination is a matter for the Board, and we cannot say it exceeded its authority or abused its discretion in this regard. See Carsell v. Edwards, 165 Colo. 335, 439 P.2d 33 (1968).
The balance of plaintiff's arguments with respect to the Board's order of dismissal are also without merit. However, we agree with plaintiff that the district court erred in granting the Board's motion for costs.
Contrary to the Board's contention, § 13-16-105, C.R.S.1973, which in general allows costs to be recovered by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rossmiller v. Romero
...Willard B. Rogers, Jr., Aurora, for respondent-plaintiff. HODGES, Chief Justice. We granted certiorari in Romero v. Rossmiller, Colo.App., 603 P.2d 964 (1979) for the limited purpose of reviewing that portion of the judgment of the court of appeals which reversed the trial court's award of ......