Court Opinion

ID: 9687092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:15:51.147614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:24.207515
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
concurring specially.
My heart is with the dissent, but I believe the majority has correctly analyzed and construed the relevant law, particularly NDCC 54-44.3-07(3). I agree with the dissent that it is indeed “futile, inefficient and frustrating” to “eviscerat[ej” the Board’s power to enforce anti-discrimination law in state hiring practices. However, I disagree that it is this Court’s interpretation of the law that wreaks that dire result. Instead, it is the legislature that bears that signal responsibility. The statute really leaves no room for “construction.” There is nothing ambiguous about the statutory class that is to be protected by the right to appeal. That class is identified clearly, unmistakably, as “nonproba-tionary employees.”
I therefore concur in the majority opinion.