514 P.3d 1007
Kan.2022Background
- Mark A. Bruce was promoted to KHP major in 2008, completed the six-month probationary period, and acquired permanent classified status; he was appointed KHP Superintendent (an unclassified, at‑will position) in 2015.
- In March 2019 Bruce resigned under pressure and alleged he was constructively discharged rather than being returned to his prior classified rank.
- Bruce sued, asserting § 1983 due‑process and state tort claims; defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Bruce had no protected property interest.
- Defendants argued either (a) K.S.A. 74‑2113 places majors in the unclassified service, or (b) K.A.R. 1‑7‑4 requires a new six‑month probation if a former classified employee returns from unclassified service.
- The U.S. District Court certified two state‑law questions to the Kansas Supreme Court: (1) whether K.S.A. 74‑2113 places majors in the classified or unclassified service; and (2) if majors are classified, whether K.A.R. 1‑7‑4 requires a new probationary period upon return from unclassified service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does K.S.A. 74‑2113 place KHP majors in the classified or unclassified service? | Bruce: majors are among “all other officers, troopers and employees” and thus are in the classified service. | Defendants: the statute’s language (and 2018 amendment) implies majors are unclassified. | Majors are in the classified service under K.S.A. 74‑2113. |
| If majors are classified, does K.A.R. 1‑7‑4 require a six‑month probation when a former classified employee (who had permanent status) returns from unclassified service? | Bruce: the statute requires a return to the same rank, classification, and status (i.e., permanent status), so no new probation applies. | Defendants: K.A.R. 1‑7‑4(h) generally requires a six‑month probation when moving from unclassified to classified service. | K.A.R. 1‑7‑4 does not require a new six‑month probation for KHP members returned under K.S.A. 74‑2113(a); the statute’s return-to-former‑status governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnett v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, 283 Kan. 134 (2007) (certification jurisdiction under K.S.A. 60‑3201)
- Craig v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 300 Kan. 788 (2014) (certified questions are questions of law reviewed de novo)
- McMillen v. U.S.D. No. 380, 253 Kan. 259 (1993) (public employment permanent status is a property interest protected by due process)
- Darling v. Kansas Water Office, 245 Kan. 45 (1989) (procedural and substantive protections for permanent classified employees)
- Wright v. Kansas Water Office, 255 Kan. 990 (1994) (right of continued employment absent valid cause for classified employees)
- Moorhouse v. City of Wichita, 259 Kan. 570 (1996) (at‑will employees lack a property interest in continued employment)
- Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co., 296 Kan. 906 (2013) (use of in pari materia and harmonizing statutory provisions)
- Pemco, Inc. v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 258 Kan. 717 (1995) (agency regulations cannot conflict with statutes)