Tag Archives: Exhaustion of Administrative Remidies

Jason L. Rodgers and James R. Hazel v. Board of County Commissioners of Summit County, 2013COA61 (April 25, 2013)

“Plaintiffs … a same-sex couple, primarily contend the County treated them differently from heterosexual couples when interpreting and enforcing [septic] regulations.” (Opinion). Plaintiffs sued. The trial court dismissed some claims and granted a partial directed verdict by removing certain “actions” from a single claim under 42 USC 1983 (1983). The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that under CRCP 50, a trial court can’t parse evidence supporting a single claim against a single defendant. But it affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of 1) an inverse condemnation claim (taking property through regulation) because the regulations did not rise to the level of a taking, 2) a discrimination claim not brought to the Civil Rights Commission as required, and 3) a direct constitutional challenge because 1983, CRCP 106, and CRS 24-10-118 provide alternate remedies.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2013/12CA0457-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8921&courtid=1

CERTIORARI GRANTED

Leave a comment

Filed under Administrative, Constitutional, Evidence, Government, Proceedure, Property

Brown v. Jefferson Co. Board of Education, 2012COA98 (June 21, 2012)

Teachers can get sent to the principal too. In this case a teacher is terminated for bad behavior and then commences the formal grievance process. He wins at step three but is unofficially informed that the Board of Education will terminate him anyway. He does not finish the grievance process and sues. The Board never makes a final decision. The court of appeals, in a split decision, holds that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Exhaustion was not futile because it was not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the Board would actually terminate him. The dissent views the collective bargaining agreement as a contractual relation; thus the teacher failed to exhaust contractual remedies, not administrative remedies, and under a contract analysis the claim should be allowed to proceed.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/09CA2554-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8562&courtid=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Administrative, Contracts