Court Opinion

ID: 9797765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:28:55.113488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:19.133204
License: Public Domain

Justice RICE
dissenting.
At issue in this case is whether a statute intended to protect school employees from dismissal by the school district board of education (the “School District” or “District”), based on an employee’s action purportedly taken in good faith and in compliance with the District’s discipline code, allows the District itself to determine whether the employee’s conduct is so protected. The majority today answers that question in the affirmative, providing for only the most deferential review of the District’s decision. Because I believe that this result renders the underlying statute virtually meaningless, I respectfully dissent.
In 1991, Colorado’s Genei-al Assembly passed into law “A Bill for an Act Concerning the Protection of Persons Acting in Good Faith Under the Discipline Code Adopted by a School District.” H.B. 91-1203, 58th Gen. Assemb.; Reg. Sess. (Colo.1991); § 22-32-110(4), 7 C.R.S. (1999) (the “Immunity Statute” or the “Statute”).15 The Immunity Statute shields School Districts and their employees from civil and criminal liability arising out of actions taken in good faith and in compliance with the District’s state-mandated discipline code. § 22-32-110(4)(a)(I)-(III). Additionally, the Statute provides as follows:
A teacher or any other person who acts in good faith and in compliance with the conduct and discipline code adopted by the board of education pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section shall not have his or her contract nonrenewed or be subject to any disciplinary proceedings, in-eluding dismissal, as a result of such lawful actions....
§ 22-32-110(4)(c).
This court has been called upon to determine what remedy, if any, the Immunity Statute provides to a District employee who has been dismissed by the District in contravention of this Statute. The majority holds that an employee may challenge a District’s ruling only under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), which limits judicial review to an abuse of discretion standard. Under the majority’s analysis, a District remains empowered to determine whether the Immunity Statute applies in the first instance, to conduct a hearing and create a record under its own procedures, and to terminate the employee based on its own findings. The District’s decision would then be reviewed by a court based solely on the record the District itself created, and could only be overturned based on a showing that the termination was arbitrary and capricious, in light of that very record.
Because, in essence, the majority allows the District to determine the limits of its own authority — a function uniquely reserved to the courts — I disagree with its holding. See Hawes v. Colo. Div. of Insurance, 65 P.3d 1008, 1015 (Colo.2003) (“ ‘A cardinal principle of American constitutionalism is that those who are limited by law should not be empowered to decide on the meaning of the limitation: foxes should not guard henhouses.’”) (quoting Cass R. Sunstein, After the Rights Revolution 224 (1990)); Social Sec. Bd. v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358, 369, 66 S.Ct. 637, 90 L.Ed. 718 (1946) (“An agency may not finally decide the limits of its statutory power. That is a judicial function.”). Rather, because I find that this Statute creates a very specific form of immunity, I would hold that any employee — regardless of employment status and regardless of the nature of procedure initially provided by the School District — who has been dismissed in contravention of the Statute is entitled to de novo judicial review of the District’s decision.
*531I. ANALYSIS
A. Immunity
Our primary goal in interpreting a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. Concerned Parents of Pueblo, Inc. v. Gilmore, 47 P.3d 311, 313 (Colo.2002); Showpiece Homes Corp. v. Assurance Co. of America, 38 P.3d 47, 51 (Colo.2001). Where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we need not resort to the interpretive rules of statutory construction. Concerned Parents, 47 P.3d at 313. However, where, as here, the language of the statute is ambiguous, we may turn to other sources, including the title of the statute, to determine the General Assembly’s intent. Id. Additionally, we must analyze any ambiguous language in context with, and with regard to, its intended purpose as manifested by the statutory scheme as a whole. Wilczynski v. People, 891 P.2d 998, 1001 (Colo.1995). In doing so, we strive to give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all the Statute’s parts. State v. Nieto, 993 P.2d 493, 501 (Colo.2000).
Here, although the Statute has failed to provide an express remedy, the title of the Statute makes plain the General Assembly’s intent. The bill which became the Immunity Statute was titled, as introduced and as passed, “A Bill for an Act Concerning the Protection of Persons Acting in Good Faith Under the Discipline Code Adopted by a School District.” H.B. 91-1203. Thus, in passing the Immunity Statute, the General Assembly intended to protect District employees from adverse consequences, including dismissal, arising out of their good faith actions.
The majority treats the Statute “as an exception to a school board’s discretion in the area of hiring and firing,” rather than as a form of immunity for employees, despite the fact that the entire Statute is couched in terms of immunity and despite the fact that the subsection at issue creates an express exemption from a liability — that of adverse employment consequences — so as to fall within the very definition of “immunity” cited to by the majority. Maj. op. at 524-525; Black’s Latv Dictionary 752 (7th ed.1999) (defining “immunity” as “[a]ny exemption from a ... liability....”). I therefore fundamentally disagree with the majority’s characterization of the issue before us today.
In my opinion, the Statute in fact creates several forms of immunity — immunity from civil suit, immunity from criminal prosecution, immunity from child abuse charges, and immunity from adverse employment consequences. Indeed, since its initial passage in 1991, the legislature has highlighted its intention that this Statute be treated as an Immunity Statute by adding the title “Immunity” to the subsection we address today. Cf. BQP Industries, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization of State of Colo., 694 P.2d 337, 344 (Colo.App.1984) (“[Although subsequent legislative pronouncement of intent is not part of the legislative history, such statements may be considered in construing the statute in question.”). Thus, the Statute at issue today plainly creates immunity for school employees, and should be construed accordingly. As with all other forms of immunity, then, we must determine the applicability of this Statute to an employee de novo. See North Colorado Medical Center, Inc. v. Nicholas, 27 P.3d 828, 838 (Colo.2001) (reviewing de novo the question of whether a medical center was immune from suit under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act because “immunity under the HCQIA is a question of law for the court to decide”).
B. Insufficiency of Abuse of Discretion Review
Having rejected any sort of immunity analysis, however, the majority instead treats the initial termination decision as a quasi-judicial action because it “certainly involves a determination of the rights, duties or obligations of specific individuals on the basis of the application of presently • existing standards ... to past or present facts.” Maj. op. at 527-528; see Cherry Hills Resort Dev. Co. v. City of Cherry Hills Vill., 757 P.2d 622, 627 (Colo.1988). As such, the majority concludes that the decision is subject to review only under the abuse of discretion standard provided for in C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). See Cherry Hills, 757 P.2d at 622; maj. op. at 528.
*532Once again, I disagree with the majority’s approach under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) because the legislature clearly intended to create an immunity with this Statute. However, even if this were not an Immunity Statute, review for abuse of discretion would still be insufficient because the School District’s proceedings simply were not quasi-judicial.
While the termination decision resembles, in some respects, a quasi-judicial proceeding, I find that the absence of an impartial decision-maker prohibits such a conclusion or, at the very least, establishes that the purported quasi-judicial proceeding did not comport with due process. A quasi-judicial proceeding must be conducted in accordance with procedural due process. Soon Yee Scott v. City of Englewood, 672 P.2d 225, 227 (Colo.App.1983); see also, e.g., Douglas County Bd. of Com’rs v. Public Utilities Com’n of State of Colo., 829 P.2d 1303, 1310 (Colo.1992) (“When an agency acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, procedural due process requires that the agency give notice and afford a hearing to affected individuals.”). Crucial to the notion of due process is that a hearing be conducted by an impartial officer, who is held to the same standards as a judge. See, e.g., In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955) (“A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.”); Wells v. Del Norte Sch. Dist. C-7, 753 P.2d 770, 772 (Colo.App.1987) (“When administrative proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, agency officials should be treated as the equivalent of judges.”). Although there exists a presumption of integrity, honesty, and impartiality in favor of those serving in quasi-judicial capacities, a party who demonstrates a personal, financial, or official stake in the decision on the part of the decision-maker overcomes that presumption. See First Bank v. Dep’t of Regulator Agencies, 852 P.2d 1345, 1353 (Colo.App.1993).
Here, the General Assembly passed the Immunity Statute in order to protect District employees not only from civil and criminal liability, but also from improper termination by the District. § 22-32-110(4)(c). For whatever reason, the General Assembly has determined that employees need to be protected from termination by the District— even where the employee has acted in good faith and in compliance with the District’s own discipline code. The majority nevertheless insists that the District itself should be left to determine whether the District is prohibited from terminating an employee under the Statute. Maj. op. at 529-530. Such an interpretation, which assumes that the General Assembly did in fact trust School Districts to act appropriately when faced with such a decision, would render the Statute’s protection superfluous. “However, interpretations that render statutory provisions superfluous should be avoided.” People v. Swain, 959 P.2d 426, 432 (Colo.1998). Thus, although the precise motivation behind this particular subsection is unclear, we should presume that the General Assembly was in fact concerned that a District would terminate an employee out of some perceived need to protect itself — perhaps out of fear of litigation from a student’s parents — thereby frustrating the legislative goal of encouraging employees to intervene in potentially violent situations in the schools.
Moreover, the General Assembly’s intent to deprive the District of discretion under these very circumstances is made plain by considering the Immunity Statute in light of the greater legislative scheme regarding School Districts and their generally broad authority. See Wilczynski v. People, 891 P.2d 998, 1001 (Colo.1995) (holding that the purpose of an ambiguous statute may be determined by reference to the greater statutory scheme). In particular, the Immunity Statute carved out a narrow exception to the otherwise broad discretion given to Districts in the dismissal of employees. As the majority rightfully notes, in the absence of the Immunity Statute, Districts have the specific power “[t]o discharge or otherwise terminate the employment of any personnel.” § 22-32-110(l)(h), 7A C.R.S. (2003); see also maj. op. at 525-526. In passing this Immunity Statute, the General Assembly created a very explicit safeguard for District employees such that all employees, regardless of the nature of their employment status,16 should *533be afforded the same degree of protection from dismissal under the Statute. Thus, by placing a direct prohibition on the School Districts, the General Assembly has stripped Districts of their otherwise broad discretion to terminate employees where those employees have acted to further the legislative goal of safer schools. Reviewing a District’s decision only for an abuse of discretion therefore defeats the legislative intent of removing from the Districts that very discretion.
Given the General Assembly’s determination that such discretion should be removed from School Districts under these circumstances, the District certainly had “an official stake” in the outcome of the termination hearing. See First Bank, 852 P.2d at 1345. Thus, I am unable to find even a semblance of impartiality in a proceeding wherein the District itself determines whether the employee is in fact protected from termination by the District. Due to this inherent bias in the decision-maker, the hearing given by the District either is not quasi-judicial in nature, thereby rendering review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) inappropriate, or falls well short of the standards of due process required for a quasi-judicial administrative hearing. Regardless of whether the proceeding below is treated as quasi-judicial, therefore, review only for abuse of discretion is insufficient to protect employees’ rights under the Statute.
In fact, this case plainly demonstrates why de novo review, and not abuse of discretion, is necessary under the Immunity Statute. In particular’, the glaring disparities between the District’s findings and the trial court’s findings highlight the pitfalls of deference to a School District’s own conclusions. In a one-page memorandum, the District’s interim superintendent ruled to uphold the District’s recommendation of termination. According to her sole finding of fact, the superintendent concluded “that there was a headbut [sic] and that, based on [her] assessment of the credibility and weight of the evidence, it was deliberate or the result of Widder’s inappropriate conduct.” (emphasis added). Thus, it appears that the “hearing officer” simply reaffirmed the District’s decision to terminate Widder, notwithstanding her own finding that the contact may not have been deliberate.
The trial court, however, reached the opposite conclusion, based on evidence which was equally available to, if not relied upon by, the School District. The trial judge expressly noted that he did not “find any evidence to sustain the notion that the head contact ... was deliberate,” rejecting as not credible the testimony of the complaining student — the only witness to testify that the contact was intentional. The trial judge further determined “that the term head-butt originated with [the complaining student] out of desire to take revenge on Mr. Widder....” As such, the trial judge concluded that “Mr. Widder acted in good faith, and ... in compliance with the discipline code which authorizes any employee of the district to intervene and use reasonable force as necessary.” Thus, at the conclusion of the de novo review, the trial judge found that the Statute did in fact protect Widder from dismissal by the District. Clearly then, the application of de novo review below served to uphold the protections created by the General Assembly when it passed the Immunity Statute.
In short, the majority’s deferential abuse of discretion approach provides no safeguards for the employee who, ultimately, is the one for whom the Immunity Statute was passed. Thus, I believe a stronger remedy, in the form of de novo review of a School District’s decision, is necessary in order to effectuate-the purpose of the Immunity Statute.
C. De Novo Review Under Rule 57
Importantly, de novo review is necessary regardless of the proceedings provided at the School District level, if any. A District may simply determine that the protections of the Statute are not triggered at all, or may summarily conclude that the employee did not act in good faith or in compliance with the District’s discipline code. Yet, under the majority’s approach, it remains unclear what *534remedy, if any, is available to an employee who has been terminated, claims that such termination violates the Immunity Statute, and then is denied even a pre-termination hearing by the District because the District claims that the termination was not based on an action covered by the Immunity Statute.
On the other hand, even taking the majority approach as requiring some form of hearing whenever a colorable claim of protection under the Statute is raised,17 an employee’s rights are still not guaranteed. Allowing the District to make findings of fact, and reviewing its ultimate decision only for abuse of discretion, provides no check on the District’s ability to violate the Statute. A District has no incentive to make any factual finding that the employee did act in good faith and in compliance with the discipline code, and then to take action against that employee regardless of the factual finding. Yet that is the only scenario wherein an abuse of discretion standard would be likely to overturn the District’s post-hearing termination of the employee. Thus, de novo review is essential in effectuating the purpose of the Immunity Statute.
In my opinion, the most appropriate remedy is to allow an employee to challenge the School District’s decision under a Rule 57 Declaratory Judgment action.18 By allowing de novo review through a Rule 57 action, we would ensure that an employee’s rights under the Immunity Statute are sufficiently protected.
Under Rule 57, a district court “has the power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations” of the parties involved, and the court’s declaration has “the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.” Rule 57(a). The rule allows “[a]ny person ... whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute” to “obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder.” Rule 57(b). In particular, “one whose rights are favorably affected by a statute is entitled to seek a judicial determination thereof so long as the court is provided with a properly adverse context.” Silverstein v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health Serv. Corp., 38 Colo.App. 286, 291, 559 P.2d 716, 720 (1976) (holding that declaratory relief was available where plaintiff challenged an employment policy as violating a state anti-discrimination statute). Relief is appropriate under Rule 57 where “C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) relief is unavailable ... because review of the record is an insufficient remedy.” Grant v. Dist. Court, 635 P.2d 201, 202 (Colo.1981).
The goal of Rule 57 “is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations; and is to be liberally construed and administered.” Rule 57(k). Moreover, “[t]he primary purpose of the declaratory judgment procedure is to provide a speedy, inexpensive, and readily accessible means of determining actual controversies which depend on the validity or interpretation of some written instrument or law.” Toncray v. Dolan, 197 Colo. 382, 384, 593 P.2d 956, 957 (1979). As such, an action under Rule 57 is appropriate even where another adequate remedy is available. See Rule 57(m) (“The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief in cases where it is appropriate.”); Troelstrup v. Dist. Court, 712 P.2d 1010, 1012 (Colo.1986) (“The granting of declaratory relief is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court and is not precluded even when there is another adequate remedy.”).
In other situations where a school board has violated a statutorily imposed duty, *535teachers have been successful in bringing declaratory judgment actions in order to obtain relief. We upheld a district court’s declaratory judgment ordering a non-tenured teacher’s reemployment based on the school district’s failure to comply with a statute requiring that written notice of termination be given to a non-tenured teacher by a statutory deadline. School Dist Re-11J, Alamosa County v. Norwood, 644 P.2d 13 (Colo.1982). There, we found that the statute’s requirement that written notice be given by a set deadline was not satisfied when the school district merely set into motion “the mechanics of the giving of notice” by that deadline. Id. at 15. Because the statute provided that a teacher not receiving such written notice was deemed automatically reemployed, and because the teacher did not actually receive that written notice by the statutory deadline, we upheld the declaratory judgment ordering reemployment. Id. at 14.
Similarly, the court of appeals has ordered that a declaratory judgment be entered in a teacher’s favor where it found that the defendant school district had violated the teacher’s statutory right to tenure. Day v. Prowers County School Dist. RE-1, 725 P.2d 14 (Colo.App.1986). The defendant school district argued that they had transferred the teacher’s contract to another district, and thereby cut off the teacher’s right to acquire tenure under the statutory scheme at issue. Day, 725 P.2d at 14. The court of appeals disagreed, finding that the defendant district’s transfer of the teacher’s contract to another district, while the teacher continued to teach within the defendant district, did not sever the teacher’s position as an employee of the defendant district so as to prevent the teacher from attaining tenure under the statutory scheme. Id. at 16. Consequently, the court of appeals ordered that a “judgment declaring that [the teacher] has acquired tenure within defendant school district” be entered. Id. at 14-15. Thus, declaratory judgments have been brought against school districts in order to interpret and enforce statutorily imposed duties and to protect the rights of those district employees affected by the statutes.
Finally, in a case analogous to the instant case, the court of appeals allowed declaratory relief for a plaintiff challenging two corporations who refused to hire her as a respiratory therapist based on her epilepsy. Silverstein v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health Serv. Corp., 38 Colo.App. 286, 559 P.2d 716 (1976). Although it ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to bring a private cause of action under Colorado’s relevant anti-discrimination statute because the statute’s provision for a criminal penalty necessarily precluded a private right of action, id. at 289, 559 P.2d 716, the court of appeals found that declaratory relief was appropriate under the circumstances. Id. at 291, 559 P.2d 716. The court ruled that the plaintiffs action “seek[ing] a judgment regarding the applicability of the state act to the challenged employment policy” fell “clearly within the legislative intent.” Id. Thus, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants’ hiring policies unlawfully denied her employment merited declaratory relief under Rule 57, even though the statute had failed to provide for any express private relief, in order to protect the plaintiffs rights and to further the legislative intent.
Here, Rule 57 provides a useful remedy for protecting a District employee’s rights under the Immunity Statute. The Petitioner-employee is a person whose rights are affected by the Statute insofar as he is a person who claims to have acted “in good faith and in compliance with the conduct and discipline code adopted by the [Durango School District]” and his employment was terminated by the District as a result of that underlying action. As such, the Petitioner is entitled to bring an action under Rule 57 for a declaration as to whether his dismissal was in violation of the Immunity Statute.19
*536Allowing the Petitioner to seek such declaratory relief would further Rule 57’s goal of affording a District employee relief from uncertainty with respect to his rights. Additionally, allowing declaratory relief would further the clear legislative intent of the Immunity Statute by ensuring that the rights of those persons intended to be protected by the Statute are in fact upheld. Moreover, relief under Rule 57 is appropriate because Rule 106(a)(4) relief is either unavailable, because the District’s decision to terminate the Petitioner’s employment was not quasi-judicial in nature, or ineffective, because the District’s decision did not produce an adequate record for the court to review and because the decision was tainted by the inherent bias of the decision-maker. Relief under Rule 57 is available even if we find that relief under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) is theoretically available, because Rule 57 does not require the absence of an alternative remedy. Finally, in allowing de novo review under Rule 57, we would avoid the imposition of new and unwarranted “complex procedural safeguards,” maj. op. at 525, upon both School Districts and trial courts, and instead allow the employee’s rights to be protected under a well-established procedure already provided by our civil rules.
II. CONCLUSION
Thus, in my view, a District employee alleging that the District’s decision to fire him was in violation of his rights under the Immunity Statute is entitled to seek declaratory relief under Rule 57. After conducting a de novo examination of the evidence, a trial court which concludes that the District did violate the Immunity Statute could then, as the trial court did here, impose injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement in order to remedy the violation. I would therefore reverse the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the trial court’s order of reinstatement.20
I am authorized to state that JUSTICE HOBBS and JUSTICE BENDER join in the dissent.

. For the purposes of this dissent, I will follow the majority’s lead and cite to 1999 statutory references.

. The majority focuses on the fact that Mr. Widder was an at-will employee and on the *533rights accorded to him under his collective bargaining agreement. Maj. op. at 522. However, his employment status is irrelevant to his rights under the Immunity Statute, which makes no mention of varying protections for various kinds of employees.

. Although the majority observes that the employee did in fact receive some form of hearing here, the majority is careful to note that the employee was entitled to that hearing due, at least in part, to his union contract. Maj. op. at 522. The majority further notes that the hearing was inadequate because the superintendent failed to make findings of fact directly relevant to the issue of whether the employee's action was taken in good faith and in compliance with the discipline code. Maj. op. at 528. However, the majority never clarifies whether a hearing is always necessary and, if not, what degree of process short of a full hearing would be sufficient.

. Of course, the employee would have to demonstrate a prima facie case of wrongful termination under tire Statute or face dismissal of his/her case by the trial court.

. I disagree with the majority’s contention that it is only the District's discipline code, and not the Statute, which is at issue. Maj. op. at 528, n. 14. The applicability of the Statute depends on whether the employee acted in good faith, regardless of the code, and also whether he acted in compliance with the code. See maj. op. at 528, n. 14. Thus, a determination of rights under the Statute involves more than simple application of a District’s code. Moreover, review by an impartial third party is necessary based on a District’s inherent bias in applying this Statute to an employee whom it wishes to terminate.

. Although the trial court granted mandamus reliet under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2) rather than declaratory relief under C.R.C.P. 57, the substance of the relief provided — a de novo hearing to assess whether the employee was in fact protected by the Statute — was appropriate. However, I do not believe mandamus relief is proper because "it is an extraordinary remedial process which is awarded not as a matter of legal right, but in the exercise of sound judicial discretion,” and is available only when no other effective remedy exists. Sherman v. City of Colorado Springs Planning Comm’n, 763 P.2d 292, 295 (Colo.1988). Because Rule 57 declaratory relief provides an effective remedy for violations of an employee's rights under the Statute, resort to the extraordinary relief of C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2) is unnecessary.