Opinion ID: 1447889
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: was the district court correct in dismissing the state claims because arnzen failed to exhaust administrative remedies?

Text: In Bohemian Breweries v. Koehler, 80 Idaho 438, 332 P.2d 875 (1958), this Court set forth the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies as follows: While as a general rule administrative remedies should be exhausted before resort is had to the courts to challenge the validity of administrative acts, such rule is not absolute and will be departed from where the interests of justice so require, and the rule does not apply unless the administrative agency acts within its authority. Bohemian Breweries, 80 Idaho at 446, 332 P.2d at 879. This Court has consistently followed this rule. In Grever v. Idaho Tel. Co., 94 Idaho 900, 499 P.2d 1256 (1972), we set forth the rule as follows: [T]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies generally requires that the case run the full gamut of administrative proceedings before an application for judicial relief may be considered. . . . . . In relaxing the doctrine of exhaustion this Court held that the rule will be departed from under certain circumstances, first, where the interests of justice so require and secondly, where the agency acts outside its authority. Grever, 94 Idaho at 903, 499 P.2d at 1259, citing Bohemian Breweries, 80 Idaho at 446, 332 P.2d at 879 (footnotes omitted). More recently, we have recognized the exhaustion rule as set forth in Grever and Bohemian Breweries in Fairway Dev. Co. v. Bannock County, 119 Idaho 121, 125, 804 P.2d 294, 298 (1990). The policies and procedures of the Department set forth a four-step grievance process. The first step, which is optional, is a discussion with the grievant's immediate supervisor. Idaho Dep't of Law Enforcement, Policy and Procedure, DLE 89-304, p. 2 (Effective 10/01/89). The second step requires the grievant to file a written grievance with his or her immediate supervisor, or, if that person is not available, his or her next-level supervisor. DLE 89-304, pp. 2-3. After receiving a suggested solution from the second-level supervisor, the third step requires the grievant to file a Request for Impartial Review with his or her second-level supervisor. DLE 89-304, pp. 3-5. After an impartial review panel hears the grievance, it submits its decision to the grievant and the Director. The Director then informs the grievant of the Department's decision. DLE 89-304, p. 5. Finally, the grievant is then allowed to file an appeal under I.C. § 67-5316. DLE 89-304, p. 5. Arnzen argues that since he was fired, he did not have a supervisor, and, therefore, could not comply with the grievance process. This argument is flawed for two reasons. First, the record discloses that Arnzen did file a grievance with Moore, his supervisor, on June 4, 1990. The record further reveals that Arnzen's grievance was processed by the Department and ultimately denied as being untimely. [4] Second, if we were to accept Arnzen's argument, every employee who is dismissed from employment with the Department would be without administrative recourse. Arnzen also argues that the rule of exhaustion should be relaxed because Moore had told him that the Department would never give him his job back. Essentially, Arnzen is making a futility argument. The grievance procedure sets forth four steps. The first two steps involve the grievant's supervisor. The third step involves an impartial review panel, consisting of reviewers chosen by the grievant and the Department who are not employed by the grievant's particular agency. DLE 89-304, p. 4. Arnzen sets forth no reasons why he would not be afforded a meaningful review by this panel. Our examination of the record likewise reveals no reasons why an administrative appeal to the impartial review panel would be futile for Arnzen. Because Arnzen has failed to show that justice requires relaxation of the exhaustion rule or that the Department acted outside its authority, the general rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies. Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed his state claims for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.