Title: Kopicko v. State, DSCYF

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

sie

INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE ORDEUAWARB iE coin

 

H.DIANA KOPICKO, § TH HA 28 P 321
§—N0.$21,2000 praiy o
Plaintiff Below, § WILMIHGTOR
Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court of
§ the State of Delaware in and for
v § Kent County
§
STATE OF DELAWARE,THE — § —_C.A. No. 99C-12-036
DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES §
FOR CHILDREN, YOUTHAND § §
‘THEIR FAMILIES, §
§
Defendants Below, §
Appellees. §

‘Submitted: May 25, 2004
Decided: May 28, 2004

Before BERGER, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices.
QRDER

This 28" day of May 2004, it appears to the Court that:

1, The appellant, Diana Kopicko, was terminated as an employee of the
appellee, State of Delaware, Department of Services for Children, Youth and their
Families ("the Department”) during her probationary period. Kopicko sued the
Department in the Superior Court, challenging her dismissal as a breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, The Superior Court granted
summary judgment to the Department on the basis that sovereign immunity
‘operated as an absolute bar to Kopicko's claim. Kopicko appealed the Superior
Court order granting summary judgment to this Court,

2. In an Opinion issued on February 12, 2002, this Court held that
Kopicko's remedy was to pursue administrative relief under the Merit System of
Personnel Administration, by filing direct appeal with the Merit Employee
Relations Board (“MERB"). This Court stayed all proceedings in this appeal to
allow Kopicko an opportunity to exhaust her administrative remedies.’

3. Kopicko then appealed to the MERB, which held two days of hearings
and ultimately upheld the Department's action in terminating Kopicko’s
employment. The MERB determined that the reasons for the appellant's
terminstion during her employment were all merit, as opposed to non-merit,
factors, and constituted a reasonable basis for the Department's determination that
Kopicko's performance during her probationary period had been unsatisfactory,
Kopicko then appealed the MERB decision to the Superior Court, which upheld
the MERB’s determination. This Court thereafter affirmed the Superior Court's
determination, holding that “the MERB's decision is supported by substantial
evidence and is free from legal error.”*

" Kopicko v. Dept. of Services for Children, 805 A.24 877 (Del. 2002).
2 Kopicko v. Delaware Dept. of Services for Children, 2003 WI. 21976409 (Del. Super. 2003).
° Kopicko v. State Dept. of Services for Children, 2004 WL 691901 (Del. 2004).

2

 
4. On March 26, 2004, this Court issued a Notice to Kopicko, directing her
to Show Cause why the instant appeal should not be dismissed. Although Kopicko
argues that this appeal involves a different cause of action than her Merit System
srievance, we conclude that this appeal must in all events be dismissed. Kopicko's
exclusive remedy is the administrative remedy provided in the Merit System
statute.* She exhausted that remedy, and has no further right of action. Moreover,
the critical issue of fact that underlies her breach of contract action in the Superior
Court (the subject of this appeal) is the same fact issue that underlies her Merit
System grievance, specifically, whether Kopicko was terminated for a performance
or merits-based reason, That fact issue was resolved adversely to Kopicko.
‘Where, as here, an administrative agency has “decided an issue of fact necessary to
its decision, the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of that issue in
subsequent suit or hearing conceming a different claim or cause of action
involving a party to the first case.”*

‘5. Accordingly, Kopicko’s Superior Court action that is the subject of this
‘appeal is barred, for two reasons. First, the Superior Court has no original subject,
‘matter jirisdiction over the claim in that action. Kopicko's exclusive remedy was
1 litigate ber grievance by appealing to the MERB, and to appeal any adverse
decision by the MERB to the Superior Court, which by statute has appellate

 

$29 Del. C. § 3949.
* Betts v. Townsends, In, 765 A.24 $31, $34 (Del. 2000).

3
jurisdiction only. Kopicko availed herself of that remedy. Second, Kopicko's
‘Superior Court claim is barred by operation of collateral estoppel, because the
MERB, whose determination was affirmed by two courts and is now final, decided
« fact that is central to that claim, adversely to Kopicko.

6. Accordingly, Kopicko has failed to show cause why her appeal to this
Court should not be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT: