Court Opinion

ID: 9788850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:20:34.178944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:43:15.491530
License: Public Domain

THORNE, Associate Presiding Judge
(dissenting):
¶ 19 I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the Board’s April 30, 2007 decision disposing of Pearson’s administrative appeal. The applicable version of Utah Code section 10-3-1106 provided that “[a] final action or order of the appeal board may be appealed to the Court of Appeals by filing with that court a notice of appeal.” Utah Code Ann.' § 10-3-1106(6)(a) (2007).1 Had the Board, for example, merely issued an advisory opinion to the city manager or police chief, then I agree that we would have no appellate jurisdiction to review the Board’s action. Cf. Nielson v. Division of Peace Officer Standards & Training, 851 P.2d 1201, 1204-05 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (“Nielson may not seek review of [an agency’s failure to bring disciplinary proceedings against a peace officer] under the pretense of reviewing an agency adjudication because there is no final order resulting from formal adjudicative proceedings for us to review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, however, the Board did elect to consider Pearson’s appeal, and it issued a formal written decision concerning Pearson’s at-will status under Utah Code section 10-3-1105, see Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1105 (2007),2 and disposing of Pearson’s appeal.' The Board’s decision thus constituted a “final action or order of the appeal board” and should be appealable to this court pursuant to section 10-3-1106(6)(a) without regard to the substantive basis of the decision.3
*1001¶ 20 Although I believe that the jurisdictional issue is resolved by the plain language of section 10-3-1106(6)(a), I also note that had the Board answered the at-will question in Pearson’s favor and then proceeded to adjudicate the merits of Pearson’s appeal, then the majority opinion’s analysis would entitle the City to challenge the at-will determination in this court either on direct appeal or as an issue on cross-appeal. The majority opinion thus denies the parties a reciprocal right to appeal the very same issue, a result that I find troubling in the absence of clear authority therefor. Cf. Garcia v. Free, 31 Utah 389, 88 P. 30, 31 (1906) (“The right of appeal is reciprocal, and the statute does not give to one party an advantage over the other party, under the same circumstances.”). For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s jurisdictional conclusion and would instead reach the merits of Pearson’s at-will arguments, at least in regard to the proper interpretation and application of Utah Code section 10-3-1105.

. Utah Code section 10-3-1106(a) was amended in 2008, but the changes were not substantive and would not affect my jurisdictional analysis. See Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1106(6)(a) (Supp.2008) ("A final action or order of the appeal board may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals by filing with that court a petition for review.”).

. Pearson's arguments to the Board attempted to establish merit status by invoking both section 10-3-1105 and the City’s written policies and verbal representations. Pearson's latter allegations may be appropriately resolved in the district court, see, e.g., Canfield v. Layton City, 2005 UT 60, 122 P.3d 622 (allowing police dispatcher’s action for breach of implied contract to proceed in district court), but the Board’s decision that Pearson was at-will necessarily classified Pearson under section 10-3-1105, and that classification constitutes "[a] final action or order” of the Board that may be reviewed by this court. See Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1106(6)(a).

.A previous unpublished decision, Howick v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2008 UT App 216U, 2008 WL 23-12593 (mem.) (per curiam), implicitly adopts Pearson’s jurisdictional position in this very context. See id. paras. 2-4, 2008 WL 2312593 (finding no jurisdiction where appeal board "never issued a formal decision concerning the merits” of Howick’s at-will status due to city labor relations officer’s determination that Howick was at-will). The clear implication of the Howick decision is that, had the appeal board issued a final order determining Howick to be an at-will employee, then this court would have had jurisdiction to review that decision. See id. para. 4 n. 1, 2008 WL 2312593 ("Salt Lake City’s method of dealing with Howick’s notice of appeal circumvents judicial review of the decision regarding the Board’s jurisdiction by substituting a letter from the Labor Relations Officer for a final administrative decision of the Board.”).