you good morning my name is lucas lorenz and i represent the appellant's in this action if the summary judgment from denver is of hell this case will become a road map for insulating governmental entities from st amendment liability although have to do is let a lower level employee who's not a final policymaker make a decision and then have a review of that decision be conducted outside of that employee's supervisory chain of command and that's because of the district court's misinterpretation of the term subordinate in the context of ratification the unintended consequence of affirming would be to create a loophole in the law of ratification now of holding the summary judgment for down denver requires that this court drastically depart from its precedent regarding what it means to be subordinate for purposes of ratification and it requires this court to disregard the clear language of the denver city charter and the collective bargaining agreement now as an initial matter though the appellant's contend that there is a genuine issue of a fact regarding who made the original decision to cancel this valid dues increase for the sake of argument we can say it was mis jennifer cockrum the department of state he's a charter writer but regardless of who actually made the initial decision the sheriff ratify that decision when he denied the gregan grievance that it had been initiated by fop lodge twenty seven the sheriff's ratification triggers municipal light ability because the sheriff was the final policymaker with regard to grievances about lodge twenty seven dues issues he ratified the decision of someone who subordinate to him with respect to that subject and he ratified not only the decision but also the basis for that decision so when it comes to ratification here there are essentially three components whether he's a final policy maker whether he proved the decision of a subordinate and whether he approved the employment or of policy and this is and bear with me while i chart out the hypothetical that occurred to me what if what if the official in denver the executive director looks a manager of safety just for process says well you know what this is a for affirming ratifying the decision that was made this is an assessment it is not dues why is that the sharer in that scenario just implementing a policy directive that had been made in other words characterizing this particular issue as being an assessment as opposed to dues rather than absolutely making the policy himself well your honor i think in your example it's essential that we've got the initial decision in your example being made by off on final policy makers the the director of safety and that maybe in that situation the sheriff might only be implementing the decision of the final policy maker but in our case it's undisputed but miss cockrum was not a final policy maker and therefore we proceed to ok we don't have a decision being made by the final policy maker so is there potentially ratification and here yes there is ok and so at that begs the question as to ratify i mean the fact let's us let's take it as being relevant part i'm paraphrasing says that collective bargaining is going to set the means for collection of union dues for one thing and for another it will set a grievance procedure for resolving those issues so the denver city charter nine point one point one says ok conduct collective bargaining and through that process among other things we'll figure out the means for the collection of union dues and a grievance procedure procedure for resolving those issues so then they do go through collective bargaining and we get the collective bargaining agreement that's in the record and the means for collection of union dues is set forth in the collective bargaining agreement article two  s and then the grievance procedure step one step two etc is in the collective bargaining agreement article twenty one point four and in article twenty one dollars it says the sheriff is the one who is going to make the final decision within the city about these grievances the grievances that include the matters that the charter said ok you're going to figure out through collective bargaining which is like i said one of those is a collection of union dues that's in nine dollars of the charter and then the specifics of it are set forth in the collective bargaining agreement so while the charter itself may not say the sheriff has final policy making authority over collection of union dues but what it does is it says hey there is this this landscape of issues and they need to be ironed out and figure d out through collective bargaining and that the charter grants that and says ok what you guys figure out through collective bargaining that's going to be how this set of issues is determined and that set of issues includes the collection of union dues and the grievance procedures and then so then the parties went on did their collective bargaining and the agreement that everybody came to the denver signed off on the fop signed off on was the sheriff the one who's going to decide these grievances so he does with respect to grievances about union dues issues he does have that final policy making authority by virtue of charter section nine point nine point one that's implicit in the fact that he is given the authority to decide this grievance and this is denver has never taken the position that oh hey the sheriff actually should have been one deciding this agreement it's undisputed that he's properly deciding this grievance and so implicit in that is his decision could go either way and that's also implicit in the grievance procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement because obviously if his decision can only go one way that's that's really that's not really much of a grievance procedure so he could have decided at the other way it happens that he didn't and therefore the plaintiffs have been damaged and that led to this loss so by virtue of that the charter permission by virtue of the collective bargaining agreement that's what gives the the sheriff the final policy making authority over deciding these grievances about the deduction of union dues even though he he doesn't have final policy making authority for payroll issues in general you know we're not making that can touch but with regard to this specific issue of union dues deductions he does have the final policy making authority if you're not making the the sheriff not being the final decision maker in that scenario that you posited that maybe what it very well could have been the situation i mean that you could have had somebody who's in charge of payroll policy who says we don't well if that were the scenario and that there was a grievance of that decision by the higher ups pursuant to the terms of the charter and the collective bargaining agreement the sheriff would still be the one to decide that grievance so would still have the final say well he could decide that grievance but if he's implementing the policy that he doesn't set then and then it doesn't make the final decision maker i guess what i'm struggling with is it does i get your point that look you've got the collective deborah said you're going to resolve these issues to collective bargaining collective bargaining agreement defines a procedure which is the grievance procedure to address those maps i get that ok that doesn't say however and this is what i'm trying to understand why is it necessarily inconsistent to have the sheriff's be the final decision maker as to reconsider but not be the final decision maker as to the subject matter of the grievance and other words his discretion is circumscribed by someone else you know if that were the case then that someone else is the final decision maker even though the sheriff it is resolving well so for purposes of ratification though i guess the distinction here is if we had if we did have a final policy maker who made the initial decision and then it went to the sheriff then we wouldn't be in the situation of looking at rats or ratification series for municipal liability but the unique facts of this where we do have the lower level employee who made the decision being someone who's not the following final policy maker that is what makes this specific situation different enough because it fits into that body of law about ratification oh you'd be stuck with the ratification theory you just would have a final decision maker you  something like that so tort rigs who is in charge of her and i'm not getting into the supervisor's thing that some are going on the point i'm making is if mister rich is the final decision maker as it relates to these matters and and therefore ok what do you think he's the final decision breaker maker with respect to anything involving human resources payroll deductions except for whether he'd acted or not whether he has acted or rationale for it but as long as he is not the person who actually sets policy on the underlying subject matter what difference well because i think what we've got here is director riggs may be the final policy maker with regard to payroll issues generally for the department of safety but by virtue of this provision in the collective bargaining agreement this specific issue was carved out for the sheriff and so i think that's that's the distinction here is that we have to take it we have to take it all in context and director riggs is authority isn't  necessarily exclusive of others because of the fact that the charter and the collective bargaining and bargaining agreement explicitly give a portion of that share and if there's over the questions i'd like to reserve council we're ready to hear from you city and county of denver the district court's dismissal of this case should be up held because there are no material facts that show the city has a policy of declining to make payroll deductions to be used to fund an organization payroll matters instead final authority over human resources and payroll matters for employees under the umbrella of the department of safety rests with the executive director of safety  time the sheriff also did not ratify a subordinate's decision to halt the payroll deductions he didn't have the authority to delegate the decision whether or not to make the payroll deduction says is that you look at what the state law says regarding policy making authority and here the policy making authority is derived from the denver city charter in colorado state law a final policy maker has authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the complained of action which is the specific subject matter in question so the authority concerns the action alleged to have caused the particular constitutional or statutory violation issue who possesses that final policy making authority is a matter of state law into determining who ha sets up who's on top of the grievance process and as a consequence of that anything that falls within collective bargaining big cover certain subjects with their four habits the policy maker the person who was also grievances so i mean i don't understand why more than more than is quoting generalities is necessary to grapple with the question of whether there should be a carbon carbon or not why can't there be a carve out in what tells you that there isn't a carve out compensation fringe benefits a means for collecting union union dues and a grievance procedure for resolving any of the above listed issues in according to the plain language of that charter provision and this section refers to the union's ability to grieve just feels that arise during collective bargaining negotiations this case doesn't have anything to do with collective bargaining the section nine dollars says nothing about the sheriff's authority improper to draw on not section and to create an argument that the sheriff is a final policymaker over payroll matters when the clip then when the charter clearly states the sheriff's authority is limited to jail operation is  department of safety is separate is a separate as a separate agency within the city of county of denver and according to the charter the manager of safety has full control over that agency so  while city departments certainly do interact the manager of finance would not have policymaking authority over whether or not the department of safety needed to make the yes or yes your honor that's correct because the communications from the union regarding whether or not jews should what do you should be deducted at the amounts go to the payroll department because the payroll department does that through their computer system and the payroll department is is part of the myth of the department of finance right that's correct you know all that leads me back to my question why isn't the manager a finance me because the director of safety has control or just decisions that affect the department of safety and the department of safety has its own budget they have their own operation they have their own human resources department  that they he has final policy making power over those sort of decisions for his agency well could miss cockrum have implemented this decision entirely without connect talking to the payroll office in the manager of finance yet she could have your honor yes she could have said to the payroll apartment you need to do this or that supervision of the sheriff and i'm really struggling to see why that matters at all i mean does not use the word supervised supervision it uses words important and we have  understand where the district court got it wrong why does it matter what matters your honor is that the policy maker delegate his policy making authority to someone that subordinate so it doesn't have to be somebody supervisors run not necessarily your honor but in this case jennifer cochran was not subordinate to the sheriff she wasn't subject to his authority or control the record is undisputed that the human resources director reports directly to the executor executive director of safety and that position is not within the church the sheriff's chain of chain of authority and the h r director is not lower  rank or position and the sheriff does not have review with already over the human resources directors decisions ok well that raises a number of questions that that's fine i don't need to dispute those the point i mak you simply there there if i understand you you are accepting the premise that she doesn't have it is not dispositive whether she is directly the supervisee of the sheer reich i would agree  been delegated subject to that policeman policymakers review and approval and adopts the basis for that decision the challenge action must have been taken pursuant to a policy adopted by the official responsible what the with the law says that issues must be presented to considered by him to side on the district court level so i would agree and concede that that issue was considered by the district court and decided on the district court level it just not delegate that authority over payroll to a subordinate subject to his review and approval also under subpoena that the director of human resources jennifer cochrane made the decision the fact that the sheriff doesn't know who made the decision shows he could not have delegated his authority to that person nor did he review and approve that decision the sheriff also didn't review and approve the basis for the human that means that the sheriff ratify his decision but restating language is not the standard the sheriff testified that someone from the city attorney's office human resources or payroll the site of the deductions  thank you your honor two points very quickly number one we did argue that the sheriff was the final policy maker in our response to the motion for summary judgment and if you do if you like i can give you the sight of the record there but it's plain as day the nd point this situation is akin to an appeal board like that in the david case where the appeal ward can be the final policy maker for the matter under appeal despite not having final policy making authority for the day to day underlying decisions in that subject all for all these reasons we respectfully request the reverse thank you thank you for your help our unions and also cases submit