Summary 2006 WY 7

Summary of Decision issued January 11, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Kruzich v. Martin-Harris

Citation: 2006 WY 7

Docket Number: 05-49

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge

Representing Appellant (Complainant): David G. Lewis of Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): William P. Schwartz of Ranch & Schwartz, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: January 11, 2006

Issues: Whether the Hearing Examiner incorrectly applied the law regarding the shifting burden of proof. Whether the decision of the Hearing Examiner was unsupported by substantial evidence, and was arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with the law.

Holdings: The Court’s review is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c). The Court examines the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency’s findings. Appellee requested dismissal of the appeal on the grounds that Appellant’s brief did not comply with W.R.A.P. 7.01(e)(2) (failure to provide citations to the record). The Court declined to impose a sanction because many of the facts alleged by Appellant were not supported by the record. The facts of the case were straightforward and the violation of the rule did not affect or detract from the Court’s ability to review the matter.
The Hearing Examiner noted and applied the shifting burden scheme: once the prima facie case is established, a presumption of discrimination arises and the employer has the burden to produce a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action. If the employer proffers a legitimate reason, the employee then must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employer’s explanation is merely a pretext for unlawful discrimination. The Hearing Examiner found that Appellant had established by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case that he had been discriminated against by his employer. The record clearly shows that the employer’s financial health was poor and that there was a connection between the financial situation and Appellant’s termination. The Hearing Examiner concluded that the continued ill health of Appellee’s finances in 2001 constituted a valid nondiscriminatory explanation for termination of Appellant.

The district court properly affirmed the Hearing Examiner’s decision.

C.J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/85yne .