Sindlinger v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, No. 91-1973
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
| Writing for the Court | Considered by McGIVERIN; CARTER |
| Citation | 503 N.W.2d 387 |
| Decision Date | 21 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1973 |
| Parties | 84 Ed. Law Rep. 839 Joan P. SINDLINGER, Appellant, v. IOWA STATE BOARD OF REGENTS, the Iowa State Board of Regents Merit System, and the University of Northern Iowa, Appellees. |
Page 387
v.
IOWA STATE BOARD OF REGENTS, the Iowa State Board of Regents Merit System, and the University of Northern Iowa, Appellees.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 30, 1993.
Page 388
John T. McCoy of Lindeman & Yagla, Waterloo, for appellant.
Bonnie J. Campbell, Atty. Gen., Lynn M. Walding, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Grant K. Dugdale, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS, LARSON, CARTER, and NEUMAN, JJ.
CARTER, Justice.
Petitioner, Joan P. Sindlinger, an employee of the University of Northern Iowa, challenges the district court's order upholding the Iowa State Board of Regents' denial of a reclassification of her position under comparable worth guidelines. After considering her claims, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Petitioner has been employed with the University of Northern Iowa since 1978 at various positions. Since 1988, she has worked in a Secretary I position at Rider Hall. On January 29, 1990, she requested a reclassification of her job to a Secretary II position. In the official description of job responsibilities, a Secretary I position is described as performing tasks under direct supervision. A Secretary II position is described as working under general supervision with significant independent work. Petitioner's reclassification request was made pursuant to the Board's merit system rules. Under those rules, the reclassification involves a comparison of petitioner's duties, as a Secretary I, with the duties of a Secretary II position. The quality of petitioner's work did not affect the decision.
In response to petitioner's request, a recruitment and classifications specialist reviewed her job duties both by desk audit and by considering information provided by
Page 389
petitioner. This person also interviewed petitioner's supervisor. The recruitment and classification specialist concluded that petitioner spent approximately twenty-five percent of her time performing Secretary II duties and that she worked under direct supervision. For this reason, it was recommended that petitioner's position not be reclassified as a Secretary II. The director of the Board of Regents merit system agreed with this recommendation.Petitioner then appealed to a review committee pursuant to agency rules. An informal hearing was conducted on her appeal. The review committee heard testimony from petitioner and petitioner's husband. Both members of the appeals committee and petitioner had the opportunity to ask questions and seek additional information and clarification of the agency's classification decision. After the hearing was adjourned, the appeals committee deliberated and rendered a written opinion, which determined that petitioner's position was properly classified as a Secretary I position. That decision was adopted as the final action of the Board of Regents.
Petitioner's petition for judicial review was considered by the district court not as review of a contested case hearing adjudication but as "other agency action." She has appealed, challenging the court's conclusion that she was not entitled to a contested case hearing before the agency and also challenges the limitations that the court placed on evidence to be received at the judicial review hearing. We consider each of these claims.
I. Entitlement to a Contested Case Hearing Under Iowa Code Section 17A.12 (1991).
We first consider petitioner's claimed entitlement to a contested case hearing on her position classification under Iowa Code section 17A.12 (1991). We have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, No. 05-2262.
...Iowa Code § 262.9. Most importantly, Iowa state law considers the University to be a state agency. Sindlinger v. Iowa St. Bd. of Regents, 503 N.W.2d 387 (Iowa 1993). Compare Febres, 445 F.3d at 233 (noting that N.J. state law generally treated school boards as separate political subdivision......
-
Williams Pipe Line Co. v. Bayer Corp., Civil No. 4-95-CV-20158.
...of any other agency duties, sometimes referred to as "other agency action." Sindlinger v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 503 N.W.2d 387, 389 (Iowa 1993); Allegre v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 349 N.W.2d 112, 114 (Iowa 1984); Iowa Code § 17A.2(2) (1995). Agency action, including "......
-
Greenwood Manor v. Dept. of Public Health, No. 00-0994.
...evidence under section 17A.19(8)(f). See id. § 17A.19(8)(f); Bernau, 580 N.W.2d at 764; Sindlinger v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 503 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Iowa 1993). Instead, we only look to whether the agency committed an error of law or acted unreasonably, capriciously, or arbitrarily. Sindli......
-
ELY JR. v. CITY COUNCIL Of The City Of AMES, No. 0-317 / 09-1424
...maintaining property values and neighborhood aesthetics. See Greenwood Manor, 641 N.W.2d at 838; see Sindlinger v. Iowa Bd. of Regents, 503 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Iowa 1993);Lunde v. Iowa Bd. of Regents, 487 N.W.2d 357, 361 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992); see also Cathedral Rock of Granite City, Inc. v. Il......
-
Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, No. 05-2262.
...Iowa Code § 262.9. Most importantly, Iowa state law considers the University to be a state agency. Sindlinger v. Iowa St. Bd. of Regents, 503 N.W.2d 387 (Iowa 1993). Compare Febres, 445 F.3d at 233 (noting that N.J. state law generally treated school boards as separate political subdivision......
-
Williams Pipe Line Co. v. Bayer Corp., Civil No. 4-95-CV-20158.
...and the performance of any other agency duties, sometimes referred to as "other agency action." Sindlinger v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 503 N.W.2d 387, 389 (Iowa 1993); Allegre v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 349 N.W.2d 112, 114 (Iowa 1984); Iowa Code § 17A.2(2) (1995). Agency action, includ......
-
Greenwood Manor v. Dept. of Public Health, No. 00-0994.
...evidence under section 17A.19(8)(f). See id. § 17A.19(8)(f); Bernau, 580 N.W.2d at 764; Sindlinger v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 503 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Iowa 1993). Instead, we only look to whether the agency committed an error of law or acted unreasonably, capriciously, or arbitrarily. Sindli......
-
ELY JR. v. CITY COUNCIL Of The City Of AMES, No. 0-317 / 09-1424
...maintaining property values and neighborhood aesthetics. See Greenwood Manor, 641 N.W.2d at 838; see Sindlinger v. Iowa Bd. of Regents, 503 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Iowa 1993);Lunde v. Iowa Bd. of Regents, 487 N.W.2d 357, 361 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992); see also Cathedral Rock of Granite City, Inc. v. Il......