Opinion ID: 2054540
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We begin by addressing the jurisdictional issue, noting that no generalized determination can be made concerning whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies constitutes a jurisdictional requirement. We agree with the observation in Arkla Exploration Co. v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp., 734 F.2d 347 (8th Cir.1984), that the doctrine presents a flexible concept which must be tailored to the circumstances of the particular case. As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992): Of paramount importance to any exhaustion inquiry is congressional intent. [Citation omitted.] Where Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required. [Citations omitted.] But where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs. [Citations omitted.] Nevertheless, even in this field of judicial discretion, appropriate deference to Congress' power to prescribe the basic procedural scheme under which a claim may be heard in a federal court requires fashioning of exhaustion principles in a manner consistent with congressional intent and any applicable statutory scheme. As a consequence, where the statute did not require the exhaustion of administrative remedies, we held such exhaustion was not a jurisdictional prerequisite to instituting legal action. Goolsby v. Anderson, 250 Neb. 306, 549 N.W.2d 153 (1996). On the other hand, under a statute providing that before allowing certain claims against a city, specified administrative procedures were to be followed, we held that the procedures constituted a condition precedent to filing suit. Halbleib v. City of Omaha, 222 Neb. 844, 388 N.W.2d 60 (1986). We have also held that a demand for action upon the responsible officers of a governmental subdivision or municipal corporation is ordinarily a condition precedent to filing a taxpayer suit for the recovery of funds on behalf of such subdivision or corporation. Sesemann v. Howell, 195 Neb. 798, 241 N.W.2d 119 (1976). The plaintiffs in the instant case sought, and the district court granted, equitable relief. The city's ordinances cannot limit the district court's equity jurisdiction. See Drennen v. Drennen, 229 Neb. 204, 426 N.W.2d 252 (1988). However, equitable remedies are generally not available where there exists an adequate remedy at law. Thus, the question becomes whether the ordinances provide such a remedy. An adequate remedy at law means a remedy which is plain and complete and as practical and efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity. Pilot Investment Group v. Hofarth, 250 Neb. 475, 550 N.W.2d 27 (1996); Clayton v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 247 Neb. 49, 524 N.W.2d 562 (1994). Omaha Mun.Code, ch. 23, art. II, § 23-72 (1980), provides: The personnel director shall receive and consider any complaints or protests from employees or department heads concerned with the administration of the provisions of this chapter. The code further provides that an employee is to take a grievance to the department head, and if that fails to produce an acceptable solution, the employee may appeal to the personnel director for review and submission to the personnel board. § 23-77. An employee who is suspended, removed, or reduced in classification or pay has the right to appeal to the personnel board not later than ten (10) days after receiving notice of such action. § 23-71. Article I, § 23-1 of the code defines grievance as [a] misunderstanding or disagreement between an employee and the city, as employer, arising out of a belief on the part of the employee that he is being treated unfairly in regard to the terms or conditions of his employment. The plaintiffs' claims do not involve the terms or conditions of their employment. They are simply attacking the propriety of the selection process used to fill vacancies open to the general public. Thus, § 23-77 does not apply. Neither are the plaintiffs claiming that they were improperly suspended, removed, or reduced in classification or pay. Therefore, neither does § 23-71 apply. In short, nothing in the code provides that a candidate applying for a position open to the public may appeal an unfavorable hiring decision to the personnel board. Consequently, the city's ordinances do not provide an adequate remedy at law, and the district court properly entertained this action. However, that determination does not end our jurisdictional inquiry, for notwithstanding that the prayer of the amended petition put the promotions won by Young, Kincaid, and Herndon at risk of being rescinded, they were not made parties to this action. A trial court may determine any controversy between the parties before it when it can be done without prejudice to the rights of others or by saving their rights, but when a determination of the controversy cannot be had without the presence of other parties, the court must order them to be brought in. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-323 (Reissue 1995). Because the plaintiffs' petition put Young, Kincaid, and Herndon at risk, the district court erred in not ordering them to be added as necessary parties. When it appears that all the parties necessary to a proper and complete determination of an equity cause were not before the court, an appellate court may remand the cause for the purpose of having such parties brought in. See, Koch v. Koch, 226 Neb. 305, 411 N.W.2d 319 (1987); Workman v. Workman, 167 Neb. 857, 95 N.W.2d 186 (1959). However, an appellate court also may decide the case on the merits so long as doing so does not adversely affect the rights of the absent parties. See Werth v. Buffalo County Board of Equalization, 187 Neb. 119, 188 N.W.2d 442 (1971). As observed in Werth, when the plaintiffs have had their day in court and the reversal and dismissal of a judgment in their favor does not adversely affect the rights of the absent parties but merely restores the situation to what it was prior to the commencement of the action, it is appropriate to resolve the matter on appeal and not multiply litigation.