Vaccaro v. City of Omaha

• Decision Date: 19 June 1998
• Docket Number: No. S-96-1019,S-96-1019
• Citation: 579 N.W.2d 535,254 Neb. 800
• Parties: Steve VACCARO et al., Appellees, v. CITY OF OMAHA, a municipal corporation, Appellant.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 535

579 N.W.2d 535

254 Neb. 800

Steve VACCARO et al., Appellees, v. CITY OF OMAHA, a municipal corporation, Appellant.

No. S-96-1019.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

June 19, 1998.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Injunction: Equity. An action for a mandatory injunction is in equity.

2. Equity: Appeal and Error. In equity actions, an appellate court reviews the factual findings de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independent of the findings of the trial court.

3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. As to questions of law, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the lower court's ruling.

4. Courts: Jurisdiction: Administrative Law. No generalized determination can be made concerning whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies constitutes a jurisdictional requirement.

5. Administrative Law. The exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine presents a flexible concept which must be tailored to the circumstances of the particular case.

6. Municipal Corporations: Ordinances: Courts: Equity: Jurisdiction. A city's ordinances cannot limit the district court's equity jurisdiction.

7. Equity. Equitable remedies are generally not available where there exists an adequate remedy at law.

8. Words and Phrases. An adequate remedy at law means a remedy which is plain and complete and as practical and efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity.

9. Courts: Trial: Parties. A trial court may determine any controversy between the parties before it when it can be done without prejudice to the rights of others or by saving their rights, but when a determination of the controversy cannot be had without the presence of other parties, the court must order them to be brought in.

10. Courts: Parties: Equity: Appeal and Error. When it appears that all the parties necessary to a proper and complete determination of an equity cause are not before the court, an appellate court may remand the cause for the purpose of having such parties brought in.

11. Courts: Trial: Parties: Equity: Appeal and Error. When it appears that all the parties necessary to a proper and complete determination of an equity cause are not before the court, an appellate court may decide the case on the merits so long as doing so does not adversely affect the rights of the absent parties.

12. Courts: Trial: Parties: Appeal and Error. When all the necessary parties are not before the trial court, but the plaintiffs have had their day in court and the reversal and dismissal of a judgment in their favor does not adversely affect the rights of the absent parties but merely restores the situation to what it was prior to the commencement of the action, it is appropriate to resolve the matter on appeal and not multiply litigation.

Sheri E. Cotton, Assistant Omaha City Attorney, for appellant.

Thomas F. Dowd, of Dowd & Dowd, Omaha, for appellees.

WHITE, C.J., CAPORALE, WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, and McCORMACK, JJ.

CAPORALE, Justice.

I. STATEMENT OF CASE

The plaintiffs-appellees, Steve Vaccaro, Leland Drum, and Henry Brooks, unsuccessful applicants for newly created employment positions, obtained from the district court a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant-appellant employer, City of Omaha, to reopen its selection process for the positions in question, as more particularly set forth hereinafter. Urging, in summary, that the evidence did not support the district court's decree either in fact or in law, the city appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. That court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust the administrative appeal process available under the city's ordinances, and consequently reversed the district court's decree and dismissed the action. Vaccaro v. City of Omaha, 6 Neb.App. 410, 573 N.W.2d 798 (1998). The plaintiffs thereupon successfully sought further review by this court, challenging the Court of Appeals' determination that the district court lacked jurisdiction. Although the district court did not lack jurisdiction, it erred in ruling as it did. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

II. SCOPE OF REVIEW

An action for a mandatory injunction is in equity. Allen v. AT & T Technologies, 228 Neb. 503, 423 N.W.2d 424 (1988). In equity actions, an appellate court reviews the factual findings de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independent of the findings of the trial court. Presto-X-Company v. Beller, 253 Neb. 55, 568 N.W.2d 235 (1997). However, as to questions of law, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the lower court's ruling. Veskerna v. City of West Point, 254 Neb. 540, 578 N.W.2d 25 (1998).

III. FACTS

The manager of the city's detention facility determined that the then-existing six detention technician II positions should be eliminated and the new position of detention supervisor be created, and asked that the city's personnel department advertise the newly available positions, test the applicants, and develop a hiring list from which candidates might be selected. At the time, Vaccaro, Drum, Petra B. Young, Laura A. Kincaid, and Ruth M. Herndon were detention technician II's; Brooks was a detention technician I.

The personnel department established an eligibility list, which named the individuals who participated in the examination process and ranked them based on their examination scores, preliminary interview scores, and veterans' points. The list ranked, among others, Morgan L. Larson 1st; West B. Critz 2d; Drum 5th; Robert L. Stungis, Jr., 6th; Vaccaro 7th; Herndon 9th; Young 11th; Kincaid 12th; and Brooks 14th. The personnel department then forwarded a candidate list to the manager, advising that he was required to further interview the candidates listed. Without conducting any interviews, the manager selected three men, Larson, Critz, and Stungis.

After Young, Kincaid, and Herndon, all women, filed discrimination charges against the city, the manager sent a request to the personnel department, asking for a list of candidates to be interviewed to fill three additional detention supervisor positions. From those listed in the second candidate list, the manager and deputy chief, following interviews, selected Young, Kincaid, and Herndon.

As originally filed, the plaintiffs' petition prayed that the city be enjoined from appointing Young, Kincaid, and Herndon, and be ordered to appoint the plaintiffs. At the commencement of trial, the plaintiffs were permitted to orally amend their prayer to require "the [c]ity to go back and retest all eligible individuals in accordance with the requirements ... and take into consideration ... employment background, sick leave usage and everything else" required under the law. The plaintiffs testified that they did not question the initial examination process that resulted in the eligibility list, but challenged the propriety of the appointment process resulting in the selection of the three women.

Concluding that the plaintiffs had been subjected "to a parallel agenda" negating "their rights in regard to the interview process," the district court decreed that all qualified candidates from the second candidate list so desiring "be reinterviewed" and that such "reinterviews and reappointments, if necessary" take place within 60 days.

IV. ANALYSIS

1. JURISDICTION

We begin by addressing the jurisdictional issue, noting that no generalized determination can be made concerning whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies constitutes a jurisdictional requirement. We agree with the observation in Arkla Exploration Co. v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp., 734 F.2d 347 (8th Cir.1984), that the doctrine presents a flexible concept which must be tailored to the circumstances of the particular case. As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992):

Of "paramount importance" to any exhaustion inquiry is congressional intent. [Citation omitted.] Where Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required. [Citations omitted.] But where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs. [Citations omitted.] Nevertheless, even in this field of judicial discretion, appropriate deference to Congress' power to prescribe the basic procedural scheme under which a claim may be heard in a federal court requires fashioning of exhaustion principles in a manner consistent with congressional intent and any applicable statutory scheme.

As a consequence, where the statute did not require the exhaustion of administrative remedies, we held such exhaustion was not a jurisdictional prerequisite to instituting legal action. Goolsby v. Anderson, 250 Neb. 306, 549 N.W.2d 153 (1996). On the other hand, under a statute providing that before allowing certain claims against a city, specified administrative procedures were to be followed, we held that the procedures constituted a condition precedent to filing suit. Halbleib v. City of Omaha, 222 Neb. 844, 388 N.W.2d 60 (1986). We have also held that a demand for action upon the responsible officers of a governmental subdivision or municipal corporation is ordinarily a condition precedent to filing a taxpayer suit for the recovery of funds on behalf of such subdivision or corporation. Sesemann v. Howell, 195 Neb. 798, 241 N.W.2d 119 (1976).

The plaintiffs in the instant case sought, and the district court granted, equitable relief. The city's ordinances cannot limit the district court's equity jurisdiction. See Drennen v. Drennen, 229 Neb. 204, 426 N.W.2d 252 (1988). However, equitable remedies are generally not available where there exists an adequate remedy at law. Thus, the question becomes whether the ordinances provide such a remedy. An adequate remedy at law means a remedy which is plain and complete and as practical and efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity. Pilot...