Case Title: RONALD E. PINTHER v. STATE OF WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND INFORMATION

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
RONALD E. PINTHER v. STATE OF WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND INFORMATION2007 WY 56155 P.3d 196Case Number: No. 06-196Decided: 04/09/2007
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2007

                                                                                                         

RONALD 
E. PINTHER,

Appellant 
(Petitioner),

 
 
v.

 
 
STATE OF 
WYOMING OF 
ADMINISTRATION AND INFORMATION,   

Appellee 
(Respondent).

 
 
 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Ronald 
E. Pinther, Pro 
se.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

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.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      This is a 
W.R.A.P. 12.11 appeal from the district court's adverse ruling in regard to the 
appellant's petition for review of agency action.  We affirm the rulings of the district 
court and the agency.

 
 
 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      The dispositive 
issue in this case is 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

 
 
[¶3]      The appellant is 
employed by the above-mentioned Department.  On April 1, 2005, he wrote a letter to 
his Division Administrator seeking a job reclassification and salary 
increase.  Having not received a 
satisfactory response, the appellant on September 2, 2005, wrote to the Internal 
Services Supervisor of his division, stating that he was "filing a 
grievance."  The Internal Services 
Supervisor responded on September 8, 2005, informing the appellant that his 
request had been forwarded to the Department's Human Resources Division, and 
that his salary would not be adjusted because it "is within the fair and 
equitable range for the position classification . . . on the 2004 Monthly 
Compensation table that is currently in use."  The Internal Services Supervisor's 
response went on to inform the appellant that "[i]f this decision is 
unsatisfactory to you, you may present the grievance in writing to the agency 
head pursuant to the State of Wyoming Personnel Rules Chapter 
5(c)."

 
 
[¶4]      On September 16, 
2005, the appellant submitted a written grievance to the Department Director, 
pursuant to Chapter 12, Section 5(c) of the Personnel Rules.  In his grievance, the appellant 
presented his current salary and classification status, compared them to certain 
"benchmark" minimum and average salaries, and requested that his monthly salary 
be raised to $4,619.  In a letter to 
the Director ten days later, the appellant thanked the Director for meeting with 
him the previous week to discuss the grievance, and reiterated the particular 
salary increase requested.

 
 
[¶5]      Apparently 
receiving no response to his meeting with the Director, or to his follow-up 
letter, the appellant wrote to the Department's Human Resources Administrator on 
October 7, 2005, requesting that a grievance committee be established pursuant 
to Chapter 12, Section 5(e) of the Personnel Rules.  In a letter dated October 12, 2005, the 
Human Resources Administrator denied the appellant's request for a grievance 
committee.  The appellant then 
petitioned the district court for review of that action.  This appeal followed the district 
court's ruling upholding the Department's decision.

 
 
 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶6]      "When considering 
an appeal from a district court's review of agency action, we accord no special 
deference to the district court's conclusion."  French v. Amax Coal West, 960 P.2d 1023, 
1027 (Wyo. 
1998).  "Instead, we review the case 
as if it had come directly to us from the administrative agency."  Id.  
The scope of that review, which is set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2005), has been stated many times and need not be 
repeated herein.

 
 
 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶7]      The discussion of 
this issue can perhaps best begin with the appellant's own summary of his 
argument:

 
 
            
State of Wyoming Personnel Rules 
promulgated and filed with the Secretary of State were not followed or enforced 
by the Human Resources Administrator as required by Chapter 1 Section 4 of the 
State of Wyoming Personnel 
Rules.  
Ronald E. Pinther was denied the benefit of a hearing of evidence and an 
opportunity to cross examine witnesses and therefore did not receive adequate 
due process when he filed his grievance with the Department of Administration 
and Information.  Ronald E. Pinther 
was denied the benefit of a hearing of evidence and an opportunity to cross 
examine witnesses and therefore did not receive adequate due process when he 
presented that grievance to the Department of Administration and Information 
Human Resources Administrator.   
Ronald E. Pinther was denied the benefit of a hearing of evidence and an 
opportunity to cross examine witnesses and therefore did not receive adequate 
due process when he filed the Petition for Review in District 
Court.

 
 
[¶8]      This argument 
fails, for two reasons:  first, the 
Personnel Rules do not require the extensive process the appellant describes; 
and second, the appellant has not shown any constitutional due process right to 
that process under the circumstances of this case.  To begin with, position classifications 
are governed by Chapter 8, rather than Chapter 12, of the Personnel Rules, so 
the Department did not even have to offer the appellant any grievance procedures 
under Chapter 12.  Beyond that, the 
key provisions of Chapter 12, if applicable, clearly leave the decision of 
whether to establish a grievance committee under these circumstances to the 
discretion of the Human Resources Administrator.  Section 5(d) of Chapter 12 reads in 
pertinent part as follows:

 
 
A 
decision by the agency head or the designee shall be the final step in the 
grievance procedure unless the grievance involves a dispute in 
accordance with Section 5(e) of this chapter.

 
 
State of 
Wyoming Personnel 
Rules (2001) (emphasis added).  This language is significant in that it 
pointedly limits any right to a grievance committee 
to those situations described in Section 5(e).  That section reads in full as 
follows:

 
 
            
(e)  If the decision of the 
agency head or the designee is unsatisfactory to the employee and 
if the grievance involves a written reprimand, a disciplinary suspension or an 
involuntary reappointment, the employee may, within ten (10) days of the date of 
the decision, request the establishment of a Grievance Committee.  Other matters may be considered by a 
Grievance Committee at the discretion of the State Human Resources 
Administrator.  All requests 
shall be submitted, in writing, to the State Human Resources Administrator and 
shall include the nomination of an individual to serve as a Grievance Committee 
member.

 
 

Id. 
(emphasis added).

 
 
[¶9]      The import of 
that language is that job classification and salary increase demands do not entitle an employee to the 
establishment of a grievance committee, but, instead, it is left to the discretion of the Human Resources 
Administrator.  Here, that 
discretion was exercised by opting not to create a committee.  The record reveals sufficient 
consideration given to the appellant's demandsin particular he actually was 
given a 9.5% monthly salary increase from $3,680.30 to $4,030.30that the 
rejection of a grievance committee cannot be seen as an abuse of discretion 
under the circumstances.

 
 
[¶10]   The appellant did not raise below 
the issue of due process, so we will not consider it on appeal.  Carabajal v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' 
Safety & Comp. Div., 2005 WY 119, ¶ 20, 119 P.3d 947, 954 (Wyo. 
2005).  Furthermore, even if we were 
to consider the issue because it is a fundamental constitutional right, the 
appellant has provided us with no authority to support his contention that, in 
seeking a pay raise, he was due more process than he received in this case.  See King v. Wyo. Div. of Criminal 
Investigation, 2004 WY 52, ¶ 26, 89 P.3d 341, 351 (Wyo. 2004) (party 
claiming due process violation must show both protected interest and 
impermissible infringement thereon); Antelope Valley Improvement Dist. v. Wyo. 
State Bd. of Equalization, 992 P.2d 563, 567 (Wyo. 1999) (reasonable 
opportunity to be heard and to appeal is sufficient); Foster's Inc. v. City of Laramie, 718 P.2d 868, 876 (Wyo. 1986) (person must have more than abstract desire for or 
unilateral expectation of a benefit to show a property 
interest).

 
 
[¶11]   The rulings of the district court 
and of the Department of Administration and Information are 
affirmed.