Opinion ID: 1751217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Entitlement to a Contested Case Hearing Under Iowa Code Section 17A.12 (1991).

Text: We first consider petitioner's claimed entitlement to a contested case hearing on her position classification under Iowa Code section 17A.12 (1991). We have recognized that some but not all agency action requires utilization of the contested case procedure. Agency action is a broad classification defined in Iowa Code section 17A.2(9) and includes rule making, adjudication (some but not all of which need be by contested case procedure), [1] and the performance of any other agency duties. Polk County v. Iowa State Appeal Bd., 330 N.W.2d 267, 276-77 (Iowa 1983). We may not, as the Board of Regents suggests, begin our analysis with the conclusion that the challenged activity is other agency action and thereby eliminate petitioner's right to a contested case hearing. We must approach the issue from the opposite direction. So-called other agency action is the residuum of this classification if rule making and adjudication required to be made by contested case procedure are eliminated. Petitioner presents the argument that, under Iowa Code section 19A.3(5) (1991), the Board of Regents is required to adopt rules not inconsistent with the objectives of this chapter. That chapter further provides in section 19A.9(1) that [a]ny employee or agency officials affected by the allocation of a position to a class shall, after filing with the director a written request for reconsideration in a manner in form the director prescribes, be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the director. That section further provides, [a]n appeal may be made to the commission or to a qualified classification committee appointed by the commission. This language does not mandate, in our view, that a contested case hearing must be provided in the review process. We are cognizant of the fact that the Department of Personnel, also subject to the provisions of section 19A.9(1), has adopted rules that do provide for a contested case procedure in such reviews. 581 Iowa Admin.Code 3.5(1). While we do not dispute the authority of the agency to provide that type of procedure, we do not believe that it was mandated by statute. In the absence of a discernible statutory right, petitioner's claim must rest on a constitutional entitlement to a contested case hearing. Such entitlement must be found, if at all, in the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution or Article I, Section 9 of the Iowa Constitution. We conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the informal hearing process employed by the Board of Regents in its position classification review offends against the right of due process guaranteed under either of these constitutional provisions. We have recognized that the goal of comparable worth is to combine positions sufficiently similar in duties and responsibilities so that the combined positions require the same minimum qualifications and can be filled based on substantially the same test of ability or fitness. Hammer v. Branstad, 463 N.W.2d 86, 87-88 (Iowa 1990). These statutes are more concerned with fostering a policy to be applied to employees as a group than with a determination of the rights of any individual employee. Within this system, any interest of an individual employee in determining the efficacy of the Board's classification procedures under comparable worth exists as a statutory right of input into the classification system rather than a contractual right. That statutory right merely affords a review of a particular classification in accordance with the rules that the Board has established. The informal hearing process that is afforded for reclassification requests adequately protects the employee's rights in this process. Any claim that the final result offends against an employee's contractual rights is not a matter for determination within the administrative process for classifying positions. We do not consider the extent to which such a claim may be pursued outside the administrative process by common-law action for breach of contract or otherwise.