Opinion ID: 1387661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: background facts and law

Text: Calvin J. Hunnicutt was a twenty-six year, permanent employee of the state serving as a compensation insurance payroll auditor with the Idaho State Insurance Fund (ISIF). Hunnicutt was a classified employee of the state. This means he held a position with the ISIF which ... is subject to the provisions of the merit examination, selection, retention, promotion, and dismissal requirements of chapter 53, title 67, Idaho Code. I.C. § 67-5302(4). As a classified employee, he could only be dismissed in a manner consistent with the laws and regulations under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Personnel Commission (Commission). I.C. § 67-5301. His discharge could only be grounded on certain enumerated causes. I.C. § 67-5309(n). Upon his discharge by the ISIF, Hunnicutt had the right to appeal for review to the Commission. I.C. § 67-5316. A primary responsibility of the auditor position held by Hunnicutt is to conduct on-location payroll audits of firms and entities which offer workers' compensation through the ISIF. Pursuant to I.C. § 67-5309C, the ISIF set a productivity standard for these auditors of two audits per day. Although the quality of Hunnicutt's work was good, the quantity of his output fell short of the productivity standard. Ultimately, he was discharged on the grounds of inefficiency and incompetency as set out in I.C. § 67-5309(n)(2). Hunnicutt appealed his discharge to the Personnel Commission as was his right under I.C. § 67-5316(a). Commissioner Ann Pasley-Stuart was assigned as hearing officer to Hunnicutt's case, as provided for in § 67-5316(d) and in the Idaho Personnel Commission Rules and Regulations 20.D.4. (hereinafter cited as rules). Hearing Officer Pasley-Stuart affirmed the discharge but only on the grounds of inefficiency. Again invoking statutorily granted rights, Hunnicutt appealed the hearing officer's determination to the full Commission. I.C. § 67-5316(i). The Commission, in a three to one decision, rejected the decision of the hearing officer. The Commission noted that quantity of output was not a part of Hunnicutt's job description. The Commission noted the ISIF's admission that the two-audit quota was a management tool only. The Commission found that Hunnicutt was not inefficient or incompetent in the performance of his required duties but rather was performing well his required duties. Noting Hunnicutt's testimony that, in order to meet the quota, he needed to be assigned extra audits to compensate for cancellations, the Commission found that Mr. Hunnicutt's lack of averaging two audits per working day seemed to be [a problem] of scheduling. The Commission concluded that proper cause as defined in I.C. § 67-5309(n) did not exist, and reinstated Hunnicutt pursuant to I.C. § 67-5316(c). At this juncture, the ISIF appealed to the district court, such an appeal being provided for under I.C. § 67-5316( l ). The district court in a summary disposition ruled that [t]he record easily substantiates the hearing officer's determination that such a requirement [of two audits per day] is not unreasonable. The district court further found that the hearing officer's determination  that the ISIF discharge of Hunnicutt on the ground of inefficiency was justified  was based upon a reasonable view of the evidence that was presented... . The district court apparently saw itself as the third step in the appeal and review process, and saw its function as having to determine whether the Commission erred in its reversal of the hearing officer. In this perceived role, the district court reversed the Commission, and reinstated the hearing officer's affirmance of Hunnicutt's discharge.