Blauer v. Career Service Review Board
276 P.3d 1246
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Blauer grieved his reassignment to unemployment insurance hearings in 2003, challenging it as a demotion and as a violation of personnel rules.
- Prior to June 2003 Blauer had mixed performance reviews, with an unsuccessful rating in 2003 later amended to successful amid ADA accommodation disputes.
- Blauer sought ADA accommodations for sleep apnea, sciatica, and heart disease; DWS denied accommodations on September 5, 2003.
- The September 9, 2003 Notice reassigned Blauer’s duties, listing factors including past performance problems and client feedback, without changing title or pay.
- Blauer went on sick leave, was terminated after a year; the Board upheld that the Notice was not a demotion and Blauer’s other claims were dismissed.
- Blauer III initially held the Board had no jurisdiction to consider workplace discrimination claims; this appeal addresses three remaining claims and seeks judicial review of the Board’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Board have jurisdiction over Blauer's workplace discrimination claim? | Blauer argues law-of-the-case vests Board with jurisdiction. | Board/agency rules limit jurisdiction over discrimination claims; exclusive remedies exist under the Antidiscrimination Act. | Board lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over workplace discrimination claim. |
| Did DWS adequately define Blauer's job parameters under the rules? | DWS failed to supply regular feedback per R477-10-1(2003). | Board rationally found near-weekly meetings and amended 2003 rating cured deficiencies; substantial compliance. | Board acted reasonably; job parameters were adequately defined. |
| Did the September 9, 2003 Notice constitute a grievable written reprimand under § 67-19a-202(1)(a)? | Notice contained punitive, corrective language; should be grievable. | Notice was a routine explanation for reassignment, not punitive or disciplinary. | Notice did not constitute a grievable written reprimand. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.F.K., 216 P.3d 980 (Utah 2009) (issues of interpretation of binding precedents are questions of law)
- Jensen v. IHC Hosp., Inc., 82 P.3d 1076 (Utah 2003) (interpretation of binding case law is a question of law reviewed for correctness)
- Sorge v. Office of the Attorney Gen., 128 P.3d 566 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (agency findings receive deference when applying agency expertise)
- Blauer v. Department of Workforce Services (Blauer I), 128 P.3d 1204 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (reassignment not a demotion; agency reallocation of duties)
- Gordon v. Horsley, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 910 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (written reprimand requires punitive or corrective action; not every negative evaluation qualifies)