Stadum v. Norman County

• Decision Date: 16 November 1993
• Docket Number: No. C8-93-733,C8-93-733
• Citation: 508 N.W.2d 217
• Parties: Karen M. STADUM, Appellant, v. NORMAN COUNTY, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 217

508 N.W.2d 217

Karen M. STADUM, Appellant, v.NORMAN COUNTY, Respondent.

No. C8-93-733.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Nov. 16, 1993.

Review Denied Jan. 6, 1994.

Syllabus by the Court

The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear appellant's claim of breach of employment contract against the county.

Kenneth J. Kludt, Moorhead, for appellant.

Peter D. Bergstrom, Ratwik, Roscak, Bergstrom & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, for respondent.

Considered and decided by CRIPPEN, P.J., and RANDALL and HARTEN, JJ.

OPINION

RANDALL, Judge.

AppellantKaren M. Stadum challenges the trial court's determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review her breach of contract claims against the county.This appeal is from an order for dismissal of appellant's declaratory judgment action.We reverse and remand.

FACTS

Appellant began her employment with Norman County in 1977.Appellant worked as a secretary for one of the district court judges.A second judge, replacing the first judge, decided he did not need a secretary.Appellant received a letter stating her employment with the county was terminated effective December 31, 1989.The county told appellant there were no other secretarial positions in the courthouse.The second judge hired a reporter instead of having a secretary.

The county employment policy allows an employee who is about to be laid off to displace, or "bump," a less senior employee from a different position.The senior employee must be qualified to perform all the duties of the less senior person being bumped.

Appellant was senior to a number of other county employees.Appellant requested to be allowed to "bump" an employee less senior so she could avoid the layoff.The county board of commissioners considered the request and told appellant there were no positions she was qualified to fill.The Board sent a letter to appellant:

After review of the seniority list and after careful review of your job qualifications and the job descriptions of the various positions which you would be entitled to "bump into," it is the decision of this Board that at this time there are no positions which you are qualified to fill.

The county employment policy contains a grievance procedure that allows for mediation and arbitration of a dispute concerning the "interpretation or application of the specific terms and conditions of" the policy.A grievance was never filed under the terms of the policy.¹

Appellant commenced a declaratory judgment action pursuant to Minn.Stat. Ch. 555(1990) against the county.Counts one and two allege that the county breached the employment contract created by the county employment policy by terminating appellant's employment and refusing to allow her to bump into a position held by a less senior employee.Count three alleges defamation.Count four seeks punitive damages.Count five seeks injunctive relief requiring the county to correct any damage to her reputation by the alleged defamation.

On April 8, 1991, the trial court granted the county's motion to strike count four (punitive damages) as violative of Minn.Stat. Sec. 549.191(1990).

On October 9, 1991, the trial court granted the county's motion for summary judgment on the defamation claim but denied summary judgment for the county on the employment contract claims.The trial court determined there was a valid contract between appellant and the county.The trial court refused to dismiss appellant's wrongful discharge claim based on appellant's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.The trial court noted that although appellant failed to follow the technical requirements of the grievance procedure contained in the employment policy, it would be unfair to dismiss her claim on these grounds because the county failed to inform appellant of her rights under the policy.The trial court also concluded there was a disputed material fact as to whether appellant is qualified to perform the work of less senior county employees.

On September 24, 1992, the county moved for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction concerning the remaining employment contract issues.The trial court concluded that the action of the Board could only be reviewed on writ of certiorari, and therefore dismissed the matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Did the trial court have subject matter jurisdiction to hear appellant's claims against Norman County?

ANALYSIS

Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the courts by consent or waiver, and the lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised by any party at any time as well as by the court.

1 David F. Herr & Roger S. Haydock, Minnesota PracticeSec. 12.5 (2d ed. 1985).

Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.

Minn.R.Civ.P. 12.08(c).

In dismissing appellant's wrongful discharge claims, the trial court relied on two cases: Dietz v. Dodge County, 487 N.W.2d 237(Minn.1992)andDokmo v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 11, 459 N.W.2d 671(Minn.1990).In Dokmo, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a challenge to the action of a school district in refusing to reinstate a teacher could only be by certiorari, and not by declaratory judgment action in the trial court.The court further found that a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the action of a school district, and that a petition for writ of certiorari was the exclusive means of review.Dokmo, 459 N.W.2d at 677.The court's decision was based in part upon the constitutional principles of separation of powers which prohibit the judiciary from exercising de novo review of administrative decisions.Id. at 674.

Dietz involved the termination of Charlotte Dietz from her employment as administrator of a nursing home owned and operated by Dodge County.Dietz, 487 N.W.2d at 238.The nursing home was overseen by the county board of commissioners.Dietz commenced an action in district court for wrongful discharge against the county and each commissioner.Dietz subsequently amended her complaint alleging unlawful discrimination and seeking compensatory damages, reinstatement, and damages for mental anguish.Because Dietz did not seek review by certiorari within 60 days of notice of her termination, the trial court dismissed her case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The supreme court ultimately upheld the trial court's dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.Id., at 240.

The court held that a petition for writ of certiorari was the exclusive means by which Dietz could secure judicial review of the county's...