Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01105/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01105-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lena Archuleta
Appellee
Rick J. Ashton
Appellee
Donald K. Bain
Appellee
Barbara Batey
Appellee
Laura Christensen
Appellee
Eugene L. Copeland
Appellee
Denver Public Library
Appellee
Michael J. Garcia
Appellee
Griego Toni Jones
Appellee
Library Commission of the City and County of Denver
Appellee
Paul Michals
Appellant
Doris Rothenberg
Appellee
The City and County of Denver
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

PAUL MICHALS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

} 

} 

} 

} 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 1""0-rr r : .... .,...,:. 

SEP 191989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. } No. 89-1105 

DENVER PUBLIC LIBRARY; LIBRARY 

COMMISSION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY 

OF DENVER; LAURA CHRISTENSEN; 

EUGENE L. COPELAND; GRIEGO TONI JONES; 

LENA ARCHULETA; DONALD K. BAIN; 

BARBARA BATEY; MICHAEL J. GARCIA; 

DORIS ROTHENBERG; RICK J. ASHTON, 

individually and in her capacity as 

City Library Personnel Officer; 

and CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

} (D.C. Civil No. 88-B-265} 

} (D. Colorado} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1105 Document: 01019973952 Date Filed: 09/19/1989 Page: 1 
Plaintiff Paul Michals appeals the grant of summary judgment 

in favor of the defendants in the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit he filed 

against the Denver Public Library and other related parties, 

arising out of the public library board's denial of 

reclassification of Michals' employment position within the 

library. Michals argues that the procedures employed by the 

library denied his substantive due process rights. 

Michals was and is an employee of the Denver Public Library, 

holding a position as a switchboard operator. He requested that 

his job be reclassified to a higher-paying position because he 

believed the position classification did not describe his duties. 

A provision in the Denver city code and library regulations sets 

out a procedure to be followed when there is such a request for 

reclassification. When Michals' request was denied initially, 

following the library's procedures he requested advisory 

arbitration. After taking evidence the arbitrator ruled in 

Michals' favor and recommended to the library board that the 

position be reclassified. The library's personnel policy manual 

provides that the written recommendation of the arbitrator, 

''articulating the rationale," shall be in the form of a 

recommendation "upon which the library commission will make a 

final determination.'' Library Personnel Policy Manual, Steps of 

Formal Grievance Procedure, § 2.13.1.5 step 3. Under step 4 of 

that same procedure, the library commission makes a final 

determination upon the recommendation. 

In the instant case, the board acted without holding any 

further hearing and based upon the transcript of the proceeding. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1105 Document: 01019973952 Date Filed: 09/19/1989 Page: 2 
Its decision, contrary to the recommendation of the arbitrator, 

was that the position should not be reclassified. In reaching 

this conclusion, the board rejected the credibility determinations 

of the arbitrator. IR. tab 7 ex. 5. 

On appeal Michals appears to assert that it is a violation of 

his substantive due process rights for the board to make a 

decision contrary to the arbitrator's recommendation, without a 

hearing. We reject this argument. There are numerous instances, 

particularly in the area of agency appeals such as social security 

determinations, when the ultimate decision-making board generally 

makes decisions based upon a written record in which it may reject 

credibility determinations by the administrative law judge. No 

infirmities have been found in this process. See, ~ ... .=. ... 9_.=_, Oldham v. 

Secretary of Health and Human Services, 718 F.2d 507, 510 (10th 

Cir. 1988). We see no essential difference in the procedures 

here. 

• Michals may be making an alternative argument that there was 

insufficient evidence to support the determination of the library 

board, hence its action was arbitrary and unreasonable to such an 

extreme that its decision was violative of Michals' due process 

rights. Cf. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979) (in 

habeas challenge to state criminal convictions, petitioner is 

entitled to relief if "upon the record evidence adduced at the 

trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt"). We have reviewed the record and are 

satisfied that there was sufficient margin for disagreement in the 

evidence that the board was not required to accept the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1105 Document: 01019973952 Date Filed: 09/19/1989 Page: 3 
recommendation of the arbitrator. The rules of the library leave 

sufficient room for the exercise of the commission's judgment with 

respect to reclassification that we can find no due process 

violation. 

AFFIRMED. 

- 4-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1105 Document: 01019973952 Date Filed: 09/19/1989 Page: 4