434 P.3d 999
Wash.2019Background
- In 1988 Christal Fields pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree robbery; in 2013 DEL learned of the conviction and issued a permanent disqualification preventing her from any licensed childcare work.
- DEL regulations placed certain convictions (including robbery) on a director’s list that triggers automatic, permanent disqualification with no case-by-case administrative consideration.
- Fields appealed administratively and sought reconsideration; DEL moved for summary judgment based solely on the conviction and administrative rules; OAH and lower courts upheld DEL.
- Fields sued, raising federal and state due process (procedural and substantive) challenges, both facially and as-applied; the Washington Supreme Court granted review.
- The Court held DEL’s rules, as applied to Fields, violated federal procedural due process because the regulations foreclosed any individualized administrative determination despite a high risk of arbitrary deprivation given her facts; the Court reversed and remanded for individualized administrative proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DEL’s permanent-disqualification rule, as applied to Fields, violated federal procedural due process | Fields: automatic permanent disqualification without any administrative individualized review created an unacceptably high risk of erroneous deprivation of her liberty interest in pursuing employment | DEL: Fields admits the disqualifying conviction; the rule is applied automatically and judicial review is available under the APA, so procedural due process satisfied | Held: As applied to Fields, procedural due process demanded an individualized administrative determination; remanded for administrative proceedings |
| Whether DEL’s regulations were facially unconstitutional under due process | Fields: blanket rule lacks constitutional grounding and can be applied arbitrarily | DEL: regulation is a generally applicable safety measure; presumed constitutional; challenges should fail | Held: Court declined to decide facial challenges (not necessary to disposition) |
| Whether DEL’s permanent disqualification violated federal substantive due process (as-applied/facial) | Fields: treating a 30-year-old, youthful, nonviolent-at-risk offense as permanently disqualifying is arbitrary and not rationally related to protecting children | DEL: permanent ban on robbery convictions is rationally related to legitimate interest in protecting children and avoiding administrative burden | Held: Majority did not decide substantive claim; concurrence would have reversed on substantive due process grounds; dissent would uphold as rationally related |
| Appropriate remedy/process going forward | Fields: administrative individualized consideration of her entire history and rehabilitation to evaluate fitness to work with children | DEL: constitutional questions can be raised in court; administrative process may properly exclude constitutional challenges; significant administrative burden if individualized hearings required broadly | Held: Remedy limited to as-applied relief — Fields must receive an individualized administrative determination considering totality of circumstances; not a categorical requirement for all similarly situated persons |
Key Cases Cited
- Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 158 Wash.2d 208 (Wash. 2006) (liberty interest in pursuing trade; procedural/substantive due process principles)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 (U.S. 1977) (procedural due process does not require hearings where rule is automatic and facts are undisputed)
- Connecticut Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2003) (no due-process right to hearing when statute makes the contested facts irrelevant to statutory scheme)
- Halverson v. Skagit County, 42 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 1994) (substantive due process and arbitrary government action standard)
- Witherspoon, State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wash.2d 875 (Wash. 2014) (recognition of robbery as a serious offense)