Opinion ID: 1127695
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The case-closing order as final agency action

Text: In deciding whether a superior court order possessed the finality essential for appellate review, this court observed that, [t]he term finality is subject to several definitions. Mukluk Freight Lines, Inc. v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 516 P.2d 408, 411 (Alaska 1973). [7] The test in Alaska for determining whether a judgment is final is essentially a practical one. Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State, 620 P.2d 182, 184 (Alaska 1980). As the United States Supreme Court recently noted, [t]he core question [in determining when an agency action is final] is whether the agency has completed its decisionmaking process, and whether the result of that process is one that will directly affect the parties. Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 797, 112 S.Ct. 2767, 2773, 120 L.Ed.2d 636 (1992). Contrary to ADF & G's assertions, Ostman v. State Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n, 678 P.2d 1323 (Alaska 1984), does not stand for the proposition that Meyer's ability to file a separate superior court discrimination claim renders the case-closing decision unreviewable. [8] ADF & G notes that we stated in Ostman that a final agency determination must be one which disposes of the entire case ... [or] one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. 678 P.2d at 1327 (quoting Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. City of Anchorage, 504 P.2d 1027, 1030-31 (Alaska 1972)). However, our quoted statement discusses the finality of a trial court decision. 504 P.2d at 1030-31. See also Mukluk Freight Lines, 516 P.2d at 411. An agency determination need not be one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment in order to be ripe for judicial review. Thus, we held in Ostman that agency rejection of a fishing permit application constitutes a final order which is reviewable in superior court where there is no more time to submit evidence or alter the decision through administrative means. 678 P.2d at 1326-28. Our holding in Ostman is contrary to ADF & G's argument. Case law from other jurisdictions is conflicting. New York, New Jersey and Iowa have held that Human/Civil Rights Commission dismissals based on no probable cause are judicially reviewable. See State Div. of Human Rights v. Blanchette, 73 A.D.2d 820, 423 N.Y.S.2d 745 (1979) (reviewing a Division finding of no probable cause under substantial evidence test); Sprague v. Glassboro State College, 161 N.J. Super. 218, 391 A.2d 558, 561 (App.Div. 1978) (holding that the Division on Civil Rights did not abuse its discretion in finding no probable cause of discrimination and that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a hearing before finding no probable cause); Oliver v. Teleprompter Corporation, 299 N.W.2d 683, 686-87 (Iowa 1980) (holding that a finding of no probable cause is a final decision and that the complainant was not limited to a thirty-day period in which to file a petition for judicial review of no probable cause finding). [9] In Simpson v. District of Columbia Office of Human Rights, 597 A.2d 392 (D.C. 1991), the court held that a determination by the Office of Human Rights that there was no probable cause to believe that the Human Rights Act had been violated was a final agency action subject to judicial review. Id. at 397-99. As ADF & G points out, the District of Columbia court appeared to base its decision in part on the fact that the applicable statute did not authorize a human rights complainant to bring suit on her own behalf if the agency declines or fails to do so for lack of probable cause. 597 A.2d at 398. However, the District of Columbia has since indicated that this distinction is not pertinent. In Timus v. District of Columbia Dep't of Human Rights, 633 A.2d 751 (D.C. 1993), the court held that an administrative convenience dismissal (which occurs under District of Columbia law after a finding of probable cause but before a hearing) was subject to judicial review even though the complainant had the right to a trial de novo in superior court. Id. at 761. Thus, although the court in Simpson had indicated that reviewability of an administrative convenience dismissal might depend on whether the complainant had the right to a de novo trial, 597 A.2d at 398, Timus indicates that judicial review is available in both instances. 633 A.2d at 769 (Ferren, J., concurring). In Demetry v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n, 752 P.2d 1070 (Colo. App. 1988), the court held that a decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission upholding the dismissal of a claim, based on a finding that no probable cause existed to sustain a claim of discrimination on basis of handicap, did not constitute final agency action and was therefore not subject to judicial review. Id. at 1072. The court cited federal cases involving claims brought before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Id. at 1071. The court found the reasoning of those cases  that an EEOC investigation is merely preparatory to further proceedings  persuasive because the complainant can bring a private cause of action in federal court if the EEOC finds no probable cause. Id at 1072. ADF & G also cites EEOC cases for the proposition that the proper response to an agency's determination of no probable cause at the agency level is filing a de novo claim in district court rather than seeking review of the agency's adverse determination. The EEOC cases note that Title VII provides no express or implied cause of action against the EEOC to challenge its investigation and processing of a charge, McCottrell v. EEOC, 726 F.2d 350, 351 (7th Cir.1984), and that the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides no right to judicial review of an adverse EEOC determination, Stewart v. EEOC, 611 F.2d 679, 683-84 (7th Cir.1979). Alaska law is similar to federal law in giving the complainant the right to file an original action in superior court. See supra, note 4. However, Alaska's statutory anti-discrimination scheme materially differs from the federal scheme. First, Alaska's anti-discrimination statute gives the Commission a more aggressive mandate than that held by the EEOC. Clearly the legislature intended the Commission to be more than a simple complaint-taking bureau; the statutory scheme constitutes a mandate to the agency to seek out and eradicate discrimination in employment.... Hotel, Motel, Restaurant, Constr. Camp Employees & Bartenders Union Local 879 v. Thomas, 551 P.2d 942, 945 (Alaska 1976). Therefore, the limited role of the federal EEOC is of dubious assistance in ascertaining the scope of powers conferred by the Alaska legislature on the Alaska Commission for Human Rights: A cursory comparison reveals that the anti-discrimination legislation enacted in Alaska is not substantially similar to comparable federal laws.... Congress limited the adjudicatory and coercive enforcement of the EEOC powers in favor of reliance on private citizen action.... Id. at 945. Second, under Alaska law a hearing is mandatory when the Commission's executive director or designated investigator determines that substantial evidence supports a complainant's allegations and informal efforts to eliminate discrimination fail. AS 18.80.120. In comparison, under federal law the EEOC is only required to use informal methods such as private conference, conciliation and persuasion, and may bring a civil action if these efforts fail. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), (f). Finally, Alaska's APA potentially provides for more expansive judicial review than the federal APA. AS 44.62.560(e). See note 5, supra. Because the case-closing order was the final action taken by the agency and because the Alaska legislature intended to allow the courts to determine whether an agency's withholding of action is unreasonable or unlawful, the decision of the Commission staff or executive director in this case is ripe for judicial review. AS 44.62.560(e).