Court Opinion

ID: 9853006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:41:04.421605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:39.718678
License: Public Domain

Shearing, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority regarding the reinstatement of Susan Clements. However, I disagree with the decision affirming the *734termination of Douglas Clements because I believe that both the district court and the majority employed an incorrect standard of review.
The majority concludes that Douglas was properly terminated because he was not a civil servant. In reaching this conclusion, the majority adheres to the deferential “arbitrary or capricious” standard of review under the Administrative Procedure Act. I agree that this standard of review applies when the agency’s decision is within its mandated jurisdiction and area of expertise. However, I believe that this standard of review should not be applied where a conflict of interest exists, such that its application is plainly unfair. This is such a case.
The employer here is accused of wrongfully terminating employees. That employer concluded that he properly terminated them. The deferential standard of review is inappropriate to a finding by an alleged wrongdoer that he did no wrong. The employer should stand in the same position as any other employer accused of wrongful termination. Simply because the employer is an agency does not mean that it is entitled to a deferential standard of review. Rather, as in other wrongful termination cases, the court should listen to the evidence and make an independent factual determination based on the applicable law.
In this case, not only did the employer terminate the Clements, but he overruled the grievance committee when its independent review resulted in a finding that the terminations were improper. The majority applies the deferential standard of review to this decision.
The Nevada Legislature never intended the Administrative Procedure Act to apply in a case like this. NRS 233B.020(1) sets out the legislative intent behind the Act:
By this chapter, the legislature intends to establish minimum procedural requirements for the regulation-making and adjudication procedure of all agencies of the executive department of the state government and for judicial review of both functions. . . .
(emphasis added.) Terminating an employee is neither a regulation-making nor an adjudication function assigned to the Airport Authority of Washoe County; it is an internal management decision to which the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply. Once internal procedures have been followed, the available remedies and the applicable law should be the same as that in any other employer-employee dispute.
I would remand the case to the district court for a trial on the merits of Douglas Clements’ allegations.