Opinion ID: 2276761
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Harrison

Text: On June 26, 1992, the University's updated RIF Rules went into effect. 8 DCMR §§ 1800 et seq. (1992); see Hoage, supra note 1, 714 A.2d at 778. In August of that year, UDC implemented its Administrative Management Plan, Phase I, which was designed to alleviate the University's financial problems by consolidating or eliminating several of its administrative units by means of a RIF. Among those units affected was the Office of Veterans Affairs, where Richard Harrison was employed as the program manager and assistant director of veterans affairs. On October 21, 1992, Harrison received a notice stating that, effective November 25, his position was being abolished and his employment terminated pursuant to the RIF. Harrison had worked at UDC and one of its predecessor institutions for twenty-four years. Harrison filed a timely request for review with UDC President Tilden LeMelle on November 4, 1992. He contended that the implementation of the new RIF rules was subjective and illegal and that the elimination of the Office of Veterans Affairs and his position violated 34 C.F.R. § 629.5, the federal regulation governing Veterans Education Outreach Program grants. [2] In a letter dated December 21, President LeMelle rejected Harrison's appeal, stating that, under the federal regulation, UDC only had to maintain an office of veterans affairs that fulfills the functions required to provide the services for which the grant is made, not a  separate Office of Veterans Affairs (emphasis in original). He also explained to Harrison that [t]he competitive areas set forth in the new RIF rules are essentially the competitive areas that were set forth in the prior rules, and that the RIF procedures do not apply to temporary or contract employees because [t]emporary employees have no retention rights and may be released at any time without effecting a reduction in force, and because the retention rights of contract employees are determined by their individual contracts, not by any RIF rules. [3] Harrison filed a petition in the Superior Court for review of the president's decision. See Super. Ct. Agency Rev. R. 1; Davis v. University of the District of Columbia, 603 A.2d 849, 853 (D.C.1992) (educational service employee is not entitled to a hearing before the Office of Employee Appeals but may invoke the general equitable jurisdiction of the Superior Court so that he would be afforded a right to a hearing). The court in due course affirmed the president's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence. Harrison then appealed to this court.