Title: Wagoner v. State, Dept. of Admin. and Information

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Wagoner v. State, Dept. of Admin. and Information1996 WY 123924 P.2d 88Case Number: 96-34Decided: 09/19/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
Donald WAGONER,

Appellant 
(Petitioner),

v.

STATE of Wyoming, 
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND INFORMATION; 

and State Personnel 
Administrator,

 Appellees (Respondents).

Appeal from District 
Court, Laramie County, Edward L. Grant, J.

Rodger McDaniel, 
Cheyenne, for appellant (petitioner).

William U. Hill, 
Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; Lawrence A. 
Bobbitt, III, Sr. Assistant Attorney General; Lillian Nicholas Sharpe, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellees (respondents).

Before 
GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR* and LEHMAN, 
JJ.

* Chief Justice effective 
July 1, 1996.

GOLDEN, Justice.

[¶1]      State employee 
Donald Wagoner (Wagoner) appeals the district court's decision affirming the 
State Personnel Administrator's dismissal of his petition for review. Wagoner 
claims he was constructively dismissed by his employing state agency and 
requested review of the dismissal by the Personnel Board (Board). Finding the 
Board did not have jurisdiction over the claimed constructive dismissal, the 
Personnel Administrator and the district court denied review. We 
affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2]      Wagoner presents 
the following statement of the issues presented for review:

a.         Where 
state personnel rules guarantee a hearing to permanent employees who are 
discharged, can the state avoid giving the employee a hearing by constructively 
discharging him?

b.         Are 
permanent state employees who are constructively discharged entitled to the same 
due process rights under state personnel rules as persons who are 
straight-forwardly discharged?

c.         
Chapter 12, Section 7(b) of the State Personnel Rules 
provides:

Within fifteen (15) days 
of receipt of the petition, the agency shall file a written response with the 
State Personnel Administrator. The response shall include a brief statement of 
the cause(s) for dismissal or the reduction in force. Copies of the response 
shall be sent to the employee. If the agency does not respond, the dismissal or 
the reduction in force shall be rescinded.

Issue: Does the rule mean 
what it says?

[¶3]      In the brief of 
Appellees State of Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 
(Department) and State Personnel Administrator (Administrator), we find the 
following statement of the issue:

Does a personnel review 
board have jurisdiction to determine whether a state agency has constructively 
discharged an employee?

FACTS

[¶4]      Wagoner was an 
employee of the custodial services section of the Department of Administration 
and Information Facilities Management Division of the State of Wyoming until on 
or about March 21, 1995. Wagoner believed unsafe working conditions resulted in 
illness and physical injury and discussed these difficulties with his 
supervisors on several occasions. When his supervisors did not remedy the 
situation, Wagoner resigned his position on March 21, 1995. On March 24, 1995, 
Wagoner submitted a written withdrawal of his resignation. On March 29, 1995, 
the head of the Facilities Management Division of the Department of 
Administration and Information denied Wagoner's request to withdraw his 
resignation.

[¶5]      Believing he had 
been constructively discharged from his permanent employment position with the 
State, on April 10, 1995, Wagoner filed a petition for review with the 
Administrator. In the petition Wagoner alleged that he had been constructively 
discharged due to unsafe working conditions and that the constructive discharge 
violated state personnel rules. Wagoner argued that because he was a permanent 
employee, the State could only discharge him for cause.

[¶6]      The Department 
filed a motion to dismiss Wagoner's petition on May 1, 1995, asserting Wagoner 
had no right to a review of his resignation by the Board. On June 30, 1995, the 
Administrator dismissed Wagoner's petition for review, finding that Wagoner 
resigned from service and had no right to a review by the Board. On July 10, 
1995, Wagoner filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, which was 
denied by the Administrator on August 1, 1995.

[¶7]      Wagoner filed a 
petition for review of the Administrator's decision with the district court on 
July 24, 1995. The Administrator filed a motion to dismiss on August 2, 1995. 
After reviewing memoranda and briefs on the issues, the district court affirmed 
the Administrator's decision on December 29, 1995. Wagoner filed a timely appeal 
to this Court.

DISCUSSION

[¶8]      "It is well 
established that our judicial review of agency decisions is as a reviewing court 
of the first instance and we accord no deference to the district court's 
decision." In the Matter of Nyquist, 870 P.2d 360, 362 (Wyo. 1994) (citing 
Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 662 P.2d 878, 882 (Wyo. 1983)). 
See also Parker Land & Cattle Co. v. Wyo. Game & Fish Comm'n, 845 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Wyo. 1993). It is a question of law whether the statute authorizes 
the Board to determine whether an employee has been constructively discharged. 
Nyquist, 870 P.2d  at 362. "Our review of an agency's conclusion of law is 
governed by WYO. STAT. § 16-3-114(c) (1990). If the conclusion of law is in 
accordance with law, it is affirmed; if it is not in accordance with law, it is 
to be corrected." Nyquist, 870 P.2d  at 362 (quoting Parker, 845 P.2d at 
1042).

[¶9]      The State 
Personnel Rules (rules) were promulgated by the Personnel Management Division, 
Department of Administration and Information, in accordance with WYO. STAT. §§ 
9-2-1001, -1002, -1019, -1022, and 16-3-101 through -115. Department of 
Administration and Information, Personnel Management Division Personnel Rules 
Ch. 1, § 1 (1995). The Department has authority to establish uniform standards 
of administration and to promote economy and efficiency in government. WYO. 
STAT. § 9-2-1002(b)(iv) - (v) (1995). The director of the Department has 
authority to adopt reasonable rules and regulations to administer the act (WYO. 
STAT. §§ 9-2-1001 through -1026.13) pursuant to the Wyoming Administrative 
Procedure Act. WYO. STAT. § 9-2-1003(c)(iii) (1995). The Personnel Management 
Division has authority to establish personnel standards governing grievances and 
terminations and to promulgate reasonable rules concerning discipline, 
grievances and appeals. WYO. STAT. § 9-2-1022(a)(ix) and (xi)(C) (Cum.Supp. 
1996). "When rules are adopted pursuant to statutory authority and are properly 
promulgated, they have the force and effect of law." Fullmer v. Wyoming 
Employment Sec. Comm'n, 858 P.2d 1122, 1123-24 (Wyo. 1993) (citing Drake v. 
State ex rel. Dept. of Rev. and Taxation, 751 P.2d 1319, 1322 (Wyo. 
1988)).

[¶10]   The Personnel Management Division 
is solely responsible for providing official interpretations of the rules when 
questions arise about their application to specific situations, procedures or 
policies. Rules, Ch. 1, § 3. In this case, the Administrator determined the 
rules did not give the Board jurisdiction over Wagoner's petition for review. 
The Board has jurisdiction over all hearings which involve the dismissal or 
reduction in force of a permanent employee. Rules, Ch. 12, § 2(f). The rules do 
not include a directive to hear disputes about constructive discharge. As an 
administrative agency, the Board enjoys only those powers expressly conferred by 
statute. Nyquist, 870 P.2d  at 363. Neither the rules nor the statutes give the 
Board the authority to determine whether an employee has been constructively 
discharged. The Board's review is limited to determining the sufficiency of the 
evidence to justify a discharge. Mekss v. Wyoming Girls' School, 813 P.2d 185, 
193 (Wyo. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1032, 112 S. Ct. 872, 116 L. Ed. 2d 777 
(1992); Rules, Ch. 12, § 7(e). The circumstances of this case demonstrate the 
wisdom of the rule because the Board consists of non-attorneys, acting without 
the benefit of legal counsel, who are ill-equipped to determine the complex 
legal issues involved in a constructive discharge claim. See Mekss, 813 P.2d  at 
193. Not only does the Board lack express authority to determine such a claim, 
the Board lacks the expertise and standards to guide its analysis.

[¶11]   Wagoner argues that he had to 
exhaust his administrative remedies before taking his constructive discharge 
claim to the district court. Wagoner fails to understand the doctrine of 
exhaustion. "`Exhaustion' applies where a claim is cognizable in the first 
instance by an administrative agency alone; judicial interference is withheld 
until the administrative process has run its course." Glover v. State, 860 P.2d 1169, 1171 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting People v. Fremont Energy Corp., 651 P.2d 802, 
810 (Wyo. 1982)). Wagoner's claim of constructive discharge is not cognizable by 
the administrative agency, so the exhaustion doctrine does not apply. Nor has 
the regulatory scheme placed the issue of constructive discharge within the 
special competence of the Board. Therefore, the district court is the proper 
forum for resolution of the issues involved in a constructive 
discharge.

[¶12]   The rules only provide for a 
hearing before the Board if an employee is discharged or subjected to a 
reduction in force. They do not provide an employee the right to a hearing to 
contest an alleged constructive discharge. However, failure of the rules to 
provide for such a hearing does not deny Wagoner his right to due process, it 
merely places the remedy in another forum, the district court. Finally, since 
Wagoner was not dismissed, Chapter 12, section 7(b) of the rules does not apply 
to his case.

CONCLUSION

[¶13]   We affirm the decisions by the 
district court and the Personnel Administrator. The Personnel Board does not 
have jurisdiction over a petition for review on a constructive discharge 
claim.