Darryn Abben v. Iowa Department of Administrative Services, Human Resources Enterprise
16-1285
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jun 7, 2017Background
- Darryn Abben worked for Iowa DOT as a Highway Technician Associate (HTA) since 1986 and sought reclassification to Electrician for work performed during 2006–2013.
- Abben claimed since 1997 he performed primarily electrician duties (a higher pay grade) and submitted a PDQ in 2000 that was denied; he filed an administrative appeal in 2014.
- The DAS Classification Appeals Committee denied reclassification, finding Abben failed to show a substantive, permanent change in duties exceeding 50% of his time.
- Abben presented his testimony and daily activity logs coded by DOT task codes; the agency found the logs did not demonstrate skilled electrical work or the required majority of time.
- The district court affirmed the agency decision; Abben sought remand to submit additional evidence and raised a due process claim—both were rejected on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DAS decision lacked substantial evidence | Abben: his work was primarily electrician-level and warranted reclassification | DAS: record does not prove skilled electrical work or >50% time spent on such tasks | Held: Substantial evidence supports DAS; reclassification denied |
| Burden and standard for reclassification | Abben: his logs and testimony prove duties matched Electrician classification | DAS: Abben failed to prove duties were assigned and performed permanently >50% of time per rule | Held: Abben did not meet preponderance/50% rule requirement |
| Whether district court should remand for additional evidence | Abben: court should remand to allow new, material evidence | DAS: no showing what additional evidence or good cause for prior failure to present it | Held: Remand denied; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Due process claim from denial of remand | Abben: refusal to remand denied procedural due process (a "do-over") | DAS: Abben had notice and full opportunity to present case in agency; no entitlement to do-over | Held: Due process claim rejected; no constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 784 N.W.2d 8 (Iowa 2010) (standard for judicial review of agency action)
- Smith v. Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs., 755 N.W.2d 135 (Iowa 2008) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Ringland Johnson, Inc. v. Hunecke, 585 N.W.2d 269 (Iowa 1998) (insufficient evidence when a reasonable mind would find it inadequate)
- Heartland Specialty Foods v. Johnson, 731 N.W.2d 397 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (agency decision need not be overturned because other conclusions are possible)
- Gaskey v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 537 N.W.2d 695 (Iowa 1995) (focus on whether evidence supports agency’s conclusion)
- Abel v. Iowa Dep’t of Pers., 472 N.W.2d 281 (Iowa 1991) (classification decisions committed to agency expertise)
- Ward v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 304 N.W.2d 236 (Iowa 1981) (courts broadly apply agency findings to uphold decisions)
- Zenor v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 558 N.W.2d 427 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (standard for remand to agency for additional evidence)
- Exira Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 512 N.W.2d 787 (Iowa 1994) (de novo review of constitutional claims)
- Alfredo v. Iowa Racing & Gaming Comm’n, 555 N.W.2d 827 (Iowa 1996) (due process in administrative hearings requires notice and opportunity to be heard)