Baker v. Director, Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 593
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Deanna Baker was hired by ADHS in 2012; a 1998 misdemeanor domestic-battery conviction was discovered in a 2013 background check and she was terminated in August 2013. She had the misdemeanor expunged in May 2013.
- Baker sued in Pulaski County Circuit Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (reinstatement and benefits), arguing ADHS applied the wrong statute and committed an ultra vires act.
- ADHS moved to dismiss on sovereign-immunity grounds (denied by the trial court); later the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- ADHS’s cross-motion argued, inter alia, that Baker failed to exhaust administrative remedies under ADHS’s grievance/appeal procedures and that sovereign immunity and at-will employment principles barred relief.
- The trial court granted ADHS’s cross-motion for summary judgment (order did not specify the grounds). Baker’s post-judgment motion to clarify denial of her summary-judgment motion went unanswered, and she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baker was required to exhaust ADHS administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief | Baker: her termination raised a statutory question and was nongrievable under ADHS policy; administrative review would be futile and ADHS is estopped from requiring a grievance | ADHS: grievance/appeal process was available, including challenges to grievability; Baker failed to pursue available remedies | Held: Baker was required to exhaust administrative remedies; summary judgment for ADHS affirmed |
| Whether estoppel excused exhaustion | Baker: ADHS told her discharge was nongrievable and policy excludes matters governed by law, so she reasonably relied and was estopped from asserting failure-to-exhaust | ADHS: employees can challenge grievability and ADHS provided evidence employees have appealed such determinations; estoppel not shown | Held: Estoppel not found; unrefuted evidence showed remedies were available |
| Whether futility exception to exhaustion applied | Baker: administrative appeal would be futile because statute governs and the grievance panel lacks authority to grant her requested relief | ADHS: administrative tribunals have overturned ADHS decisions; Baker did not present facts demonstrating certain denial on appeal | Held: Futility exception did not apply; plaintiff failed to show certainty relief would be denied |
| Whether declaratory-relief claim removes exhaustion requirement | Baker: statutory facial challenge (citing Abraham and McGhee) meant exhaustion unnecessary | ADHS: where relief (reinstatement) is available administratively, exhaustion is required | Held: Declaratory-judgment claim does not avoid exhaustion here; remedies were available and must be pursued administratively |
Key Cases Cited
- Hotels.com, L.P. v. Pine Bluff Adver. & Promotion Comm’n, 2013 Ark. 392, 430 S.W.3d 56 (administrative remedies must be exhausted when relief is available)
- Abraham v. Beck, 2015 Ark. 80, 456 S.W.3d 744 (facial statutory challenges where no agency claim exists may not require exhaustion)
- McGhee v. Arkansas State Board of Collection Agencies, 368 Ark. 60, 234 S.W.3d 278 (constitutional/statutory claims must generally be raised administratively when relief is available)
- Old Republic Surety Co. v. McGhee, 360 Ark. 562, 203 S.W.3d 94 (futility exception requires facts showing certainty that administrative appeal would be denied)
- Rehab Hosp. Servs. Corp. v. Delta-Hills Health Sys. Agency, Inc., 285 Ark. 397, 687 S.W.2d 840 (declaratory-judgment actions ordinarily require exhaustion of administrative remedies)