State Personnel Bd. v. Gigax, 81SC206
| Decision Date | 07 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 81SC206,81SC206 |
| Parties | The STATE PERSONNEL BOARD of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Norman A. GIGAX, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Kenneth S. Lieb, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for petitioner.
Wegher & Fulton, P.C., Paul A. Linton, David R. DeMuro, Denver, for respondent.
We granted certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals in Gigax v. State Personnel Board, 632 P.2d 630 (Colo.App.1981). We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
Norman A. Gigax, an employee of the Colorado State Department of Social Services (Department), was advised by a letter from the Department that he had been dismissed pursuant to State Rules and Regulations § 7-7-1(A). That provision permits termination of a state employee who is convicted of either a felony or an offense involving moral turpitude. Mr. Gigax had been convicted of filing a fraudulent withholding exemption certificate in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7205.
In its letter of September 28, 1979, the Department informed Mr. Gigax that he had ten days to appeal his termination to the State Personnel Board of the State of Colorado (Board). However, Mr. Gigax took no action until November 19, 1979, when he filed a request for an extension of time in which to file an appeal. The Board denied his request because it was not filed within the ten-day period specified in section 24-50-125(3), C.R.S. 1973:
Mr. Gigax filed a complaint in the district court seeking a reversal of the Board's action. After a hearing on the Board's motion to dismiss the complaint, the district court granted the motion. Mr. Gigax then appealed to the court of appeals which reversed the judgment of the district court. The court of appeals noted that nothing in section 24-50-125(3) "requires that a request for an extension of time be filed within the stated ten-day period." It therefore ruled that the Board may review a dismissal if it finds that an employee had good cause for failing to file anything within the ten-day period. The court of appeals ordered that the case be remanded to the Board with instructions to conduct a hearing on the issue of whether Mr. Gigax had good cause for delay.
We do not agree with this interpretation of section 24-50-125(3), C.R.S. 1973, and hold that this provision requires that an employee dissatisfied with a decision of the Board must file either a petition for review or a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary for 1997-98 No. 62, Matter of, 98SA132
...the General Assembly when it fixes statutory deadlines for taking an appeal from an administrative decision. See State Personnel Bd. v. Gigax, 659 P.2d 693, 694 (Colo.1983)(interpreting statute which required filing of appeal to State Personnel Board within ten days, and noting that "[p]rom......
-
Cunningham v. Department of Highways
...ten-day period, it is generally true that the agency lacks jurisdiction to review the action complained of. See State Personnel Board v. Gigax, 659 P.2d 693 (Colo.1983). However, this is not true if the notice of the right to appeal, required to be given to the person who is adversely affec......
-
Lanphier v. Dept. of Public Health and Env.
...exceptions, a motion to extend the time for filing them must be filed within the original thirty-day period. See State Pers. Bd. v. Gigax, 659 P.2d 693, 694 (Colo.1983)("[t]here can be no extension of that which has already lapsed or ended" (quoting Morford v. Colo. Home Inv. Co., 62 Colo. ......
-
Salas v. State Personnel Bd. of State of Colo., 86CA0201
...argues that even if Salas was a classified employee, he failed to file a timely appeal of his termination. It cites State Personnel Board v. Gigax, 659 P.2d 693 (Colo.1983) as supporting the proposition that the 10-day limitation in § 24-50-125(3), C.R.S. (1988 Repl. Vol. 10B) is mandatory ......