Saxe v. Board of Trustees
| Decision Date | 08 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 05CA1251.,05CA1251. |
| Citation | 179 P.3d 67 |
| Parties | Eugene W. SAXE, Thomas Lason Altherr, Cindy L. Carlson, Norman E. Pence, David Sullivan, and Colorado Federation of Teachers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF METROPOLITAN STATE COLLEGE OF DENVER, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Buescher, Goldhammer, Kelman & Dodge, P.C., Joseph M. Goldhammer, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Fred C. Kuhlwilm, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.
Christopher Beasley, Denver, Colorado; Robert A. Gorman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; David M. Rabban, Austin, Texas, for Amicus Curiae American Association of University Professors, On the Briefs.
Opinion by Judge TAUBMAN.
In this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiffs, five tenured professors at Metropolitan State College of Denver (Metro State) and the Colorado Federation of Teachers (collectively Professors), appeal the judgment entered following a bench trial, denying one claim and dismissing another against defendant, Board of Trustees of Metro State (Board). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
This case concerns the impact of the 2003 Handbook for Professional Personnel (2003 Handbook) at Metro State on tenure issues that could arise during reductions in force (RIFs).
At the time of trial, Metro State employed 291 tenured and tenure-track faculty members, and about 600 part-time faculty. Ninety to one hundred faculty members, all of whom received tenure at Metro State before 2003, were members of the Colorado Federation of Teachers.
Metro State was formerly part of the Colorado State Colleges system. In July 2002, the General Assembly made Metro State independent from that system and created the Board as its governing authority. See § 23-54-102(1)(b), C.R.S.2006. In 2003, the Board issued the 2003 Handbook, which "supersede[d] any prior version of this Handbook or the State College System Handbook."
The trial court found the 2003 handbook and its predecessor, the Colorado Handbook for Professional Personnel (1994 Handbook) constituted a part of the contracts of employment between faculty members and Metro State. Although each such faculty member had an employment contract, those contracts are not in the record. The essence of the dispute here concerns the extent to which Metro State may modify the terms of employment through changes to the 1994 handbook.
The glossary in the 1994 Handbook defined tenure to mean:
(1) professional employees who were formerly defined as faculty under Section 23-10-102(4), C.R.S. (repealed 1988) and who completed at least three years of continuous service at one of the State Colleges by the end of the 1987-88 fiscal year; and (2) professional employees who have been awarded tenure by the Trustees may be terminated from the college and department, program area or other similar academic unit in which they are employed only for cause or due to a reduction in force as specified in Sections XI.A. or XII.C. of this Handbook. . . . Tenure is an award made by the Trustees on the basis of professional employees' performance. Tenure cannot be automatically granted by length of service. Tenure is granted by the Trustees to reinforce the concept of academic freedom as stated in Section III of this Handbook.
The parties agree that a tenured faculty member may be terminated for cause or laid off due to a RIF and that, under certain circumstances, the Board may change provisions within the employment handbook. However, they disagree as to whether certain changes the Board made in the 2003 Handbook are applicable to faculty members who received tenure before that handbook became effective.
The 1994 Handbook identified the grounds for termination and provided, in the event of a RIF, nontenured faculty would be laid off first. 1994 Handbook XI.A.3.a.
The 2003 Handbook did not afford tenured faculty a similar priority over nontenured faculty. Instead, it listed factors the President must consider in making layoff decisions, including tenure, status, years of service, program needs, academic expertise, performance, and teaching record. 2003 Handbook XI.B.1. It further provided that "[t]he primary consideration shall be the maintenance of a sound and balanced educational program." 2003 Handbook XI.B.1.
In addition, the 1994 Handbook stated that, in the event tenured faculty were laid off, "every reasonable effort would be made to relocate individuals in the institution." 1994 Handbook XI.A.3.e. The 2003 Handbook did not require Metro State to make any efforts to relocate dismissed faculty within the institution. 2003 Handbook X.C.
The two handbooks also contained different hearing procedures in the event a tenured faculty member was dismissed for cause or in a RIF. The 1994 Handbook provided that tenured faculty members could appeal their dismissals through a campus hearing committee and a hearing officer. 1994 Handbook XI.B.4. The campus hearing committee procedure was akin to alternative dispute resolution, in that the committee would attempt to broker an agreement between a faculty member and the President. 1994 Handbook XI. D.1.c. It further provided, "The campus hearing committee shall make available to the faculty member and to the college president all available pertinent data." 1994 Handbook XI. D.1.c.
If no agreement was reached, the faculty member could proceed to a hearing before a hearing officer. 1994 Handbook XI.D.2.a. The hearing officer would be chosen through a process of elimination by the President and the faculty member from a list of three officers chosen by the Board. 1994 Handbook XI.D.2.c.
The 2003 Handbook eliminated the hearing committee procedure, but provided for a hearing by a hearing officer chosen by a similar process. 2003 Handbook X.B.6.
No legal standard of review for a hearing officer's decision was specified by the 1994 Handbook, but the 2003 Handbook provided for an "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review. 2003 Handbook X.B.6.
Both handbooks provided that in the event the hearing officer agreed with the faculty member, the hearing officer would prepare a written decision or statement. 1994 Handbook XI.D.2.f.; 2003 Handbook X.B.9. Although the 1994 Handbook required the hearing officer to make findings of fact and conclusions, the 2003 Handbook provided that, in the event the hearing officer agreed with the President's initial decision, the hearing officer "shall, by a simple unelaborated statement, so notify the President and the faculty member." 2003 Handbook X.B.9.
Finally, the 1994 Handbook provided that the hearing officer's determination would be reviewed and action taken by the Board. 1994 Handbook XI.D.3.b. The Board's decision was subject to judicial review as provided by law. 1994 Handbook XI.D.4.b. In contrast, the 2003 Handbook provided the Board "may consult with the President" to determine what action should be taken and "the President's decision is final and is not subject to any complaint or further appeal procedure." 2003 Handbook X.B.9.
As relevant here, Professors brought two claims in an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Board, alleging the 2003 changes to the handbook (1) breached their employment contract by removing prior substantive and procedural due process rights and protections for continued employment; and (2) denied them procedural due process by limiting the hearing procedures. Professors did not allege that any employment actions had been taken or threatened against individual faculty members based on the 2003 Handbook.
The trial court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law. It held there was no breach of contract. However, it concluded, "The President must bear the burden of establishing the ground or grounds for cause set forth in the notice." On appeal, the parties agree with this interpretation of the 2003 Handbook.
The trial court dismissed the due process claim because "the mere possibility that Plaintiffs may be subject to a dismissal for cause or by reduction in force in the future does not constitute an actual controversy." Although on appeal Professors make passing references to dismissals for cause with respect to this claim, they focus primarily on RIFs. Therefore, we will do the same, although our analysis in part III may apply to dismissals for cause.
Professors contend the trial court erred in denying declaratory relief on their first claim because (a) the court adopted Professors' interpretation of the 2003 Handbook related to the burden of proof in a RIF hearing for dismissal and (b) the Board breached the employment contract by taking away a vested property right without due process of law. We conclude the trial court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of Professors on the burden of proof claim without stating so expressly. We further conclude that the case must be remanded to the trial court to determine whether certain provisions of the 2003 Handbook regarding priority and relocation involved Professors' vested rights, and, if so, whether those changes were retrospective.
The parties dispute the proper standard of review. A trial court's decision to accept jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment is a matter we review de novo. Berenergy Corp. v. Zab, Inc., 94 P.3d 1232 (Colo.App.2004), aff'd, 136 P.3d 252 (Colo. 2006). Once a trial court has accepted jurisdiction, we review its decision whether to enter a declaratory judgment for an abuse of discretion. Troelstrup v. Dist. Court, 712 P.2d 1010 (Colo.1986). Here, the trial court's jurisdiction is not disputed. Therefore, we review the trial court's decision not expressly entering a declaratory judgment for an abuse of discretion.
"[A] declaratory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Markwell v. Cooke
...the decision whether to enter a declaratory judgment is within the discretion of the trial court. Saxe v. Bd. of Trs. of Metro. State Coll. of Denver , 179 P.3d 67, 72 (Colo. App. 2007). ¶22 Generally, we show deference to a ruling within the trial court's discretion; only if such a ruling ......
-
People v. Chavarria-Sanchez
..."only procedural or remedial." See, e.g., Continental Title Co. v. District Court, 645 P.2d 1310, 1315 (Colo. 1982); Saxe v. Bd. of Trustees, 179 P.3d 67, 74 (Colo.App.2007). B. Forfeiture of Bonds Posted for Illegal 1. Pre-June 2007 Law Colorado law formerly required entry of an order forf......
-
Mendoza v. Pioneer Gen. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 13CA0489
...judgment for an abuse of discretion. Troelstrup v. Dist. Court, 712 P.2d 1010, 1012 (Colo.1986) ; Saxe v. Bd. of Trs. of Metro. State Coll. of Denver, 179 P.3d 67, 72 (Colo.App.2007). Where, as here, the issue is one of statutory interpretation, our review is de novo. See Zab, Inc. v. Beren......
-
Chittenden v. Colo. Bd. of Soc. Work Exam'rs
...she is entitled to judicial review notwithstanding the absence of final agency action. ¶ 23 Nor does Saxe v. Board of Trustees of Metropolitan State College, 179 P.3d 67, 79 (Colo.App.2007), assist Chittenden. In Saxe, 179 P.3d at 70, the plaintiff professors brought a declaratory judgment ......
-
Rule 57 DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS.
...terms of the contract because it was later modified with the intent to apply it retroactively. Saxe v. Bd. of Trs. of Metro. State Coll., 179 P.3d 67 (Colo. App. 2007). III. WHO MAY OBTAIN DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. The general assembly is without power to require courts to exercise nonjudicial......
-
Section 25 DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
...both initiate and resolve employee dismissal denies employee's right to procedural due process. Saxe v. Bd. of Trs. of Metro. State Coll., 179 P.3d 67 (Colo. App. 2007). Former § 16-8-110 (1) declared unconstitutional as violation of due process to the extent that it allowed an accused to b......
-
The Dewitt Test: Determining the Retroactivity of New Civil Legislation in Colorado
...517 P.2d 834, 838 (Colo. 1973). 30. Id.; Ficarra, supra note 10 at 16. 31. See Saxe v. Bd. of Trustees of Metro. State Coll. of Denver, 179 P.3d 67, 77-78 (Colo.App. 2007)(remanding for trial court to make findings regarding three factors). 32. See Ficarra, supra note 10 at 21-22. 33. City ......