Summary 2008 WY 77

Summary of Decision issued July 9, 2008

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

Case Name: Douglass v. WYDOT

Citation: 2008 WY 77

Docket Number: S-07-0110

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Timothy C. Kingston of Graves, Miller & Kingston, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; Ryan Schelhaas, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Douglass sought review in the district court of a decision by the WYDOT denying him a salary increase. Douglass appealed claiming there was no final agency action starting the 30 days for filing a petition for review or alternatively, if there was final agency action the district court erred in dismissing his petition because he showed excusable neglect.
Final Agency Decision: Douglass sought review of both WYDOT’s decision that he was not entitled to a salary increase and A&I’s letter denying his request for a grievance committee. The Court did not find his assertion that the A&I letter was not a final agency decision contradictory to his petition seeking review of the A&I letter. Douglass was not estopped from seeking review of both agency actions and then making the argument that the district court erred in dismissing his petition because there was not final agency action by WYDOT. The A&I letter was not the final agency decision for purposes of W.R.A.P. 12.04.
The Court stated that it was not clear that the email from Collins at WYDOT ended the proceedings. It held that the email did not constitute the final agency decision for purposes of W.R.A.P. 12.04.
The Court stated that the final step in the administrative grievance process is the decision by the employees’ agency. In the instant case, the last step would have been WYDOT’s final decision to grant or deny his request for a salary increase. Given the Court’s determination that the email did not constitute a final agency decision, the 30 days for filing a petition for review had not been started.

Holding: After a reasonable time, an agency’s inaction is deemed a denial. The Court held that the period from Oct. 31, 2006 to Feb. 16, 2007 constituted a reasonable time. The Court deemed WYDOT’s inaction during that time to be a denial. Thus the petition for review was timely.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/6kaakw .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2007 WY 56

Summary of Decision issued April 9, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion 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 with a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

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

Case Name: Pinther v. State, Department of A & I

Citation: 2007 WY 56

Docket Number: 06-196

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Pro se.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; Ryan T. Schelhaas, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Elizabeth B. Lance, Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether the Wyoming Department of Administration and Information violated the State’s Personnel Rules or the Appellant’s constitutional right to the due process of law by denying his request that a grievance committee be appointed to consider his demand for a job reclassification and salary increase.

Facts/Discussion: This is a W.R.A.P. 12.11 appeal from the district court’s adverse ruling in regard to Appellant’s petition for review of agency action.
Standard of Review: When considering an appeal from a district court’s review of agency action, the Court accords no special deference to the district court’s conclusion. The scope of the Court’s review is set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c).

Appellant’s argument failed because the Personnel Rules do not require the extensive process described by Appellant. Position classifications are governed by Chapter 8 not Chapter 12 of the Personnel Rules. The key provisions of Chapter 12 leave the decision of whether to establish a grievance committee under these circumstances to the discretion of the Human Resources Administrator (see Section 5(e).) Appellant had not shown any constitutional due process right to that process under the circumstances of the case. Appellant had not raised the issue of due process in the court below, so the Court would not consider it on appeal.

Holding: The rulings of the district court and of the Department of Administration and Information were affirmed.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ysb7v6 .