Gee v. Phoenix
1 CA-CV 15-0618
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Nov 3, 2016Background
- Angela Gee and the City of Phoenix entered a Last Chance Employment Agreement (LCEA) in Oct. 2013 resolving prior personnel violations in exchange for a 40-hour suspension and a waiver of appeal rights; the LCEA required compliance with City rules through Oct. 2018 and warned unscheduled absences could lead to termination.
- Gee’s suspension notice required no unscheduled non‑FMLA absences between Oct. 19, 2013 and Aug. 26, 2014 to remain in compliance; Gee admitted at least one unscheduled absence during that period.
- In Sept. 2014 the City recommended termination for unauthorized absence and failure to follow City policies; Gee was terminated for violating attendance policy and City Personnel Rule 21b3.
- A hearing officer found multiple unscheduled absences/tardies after the LCEA and concluded Gee violated Rules 21b3 and 21b18, recommending dismissal; the hearing officer did not make a discrete finding on compliance with the attendance policy.
- The Civil Service Board sustained dismissal and added a finding under Rule 21b8; Gee filed a special action in superior court seeking reversal; the superior court declined jurisdiction and Gee appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether superior court should accept special action jurisdiction | Gee: Board/hearing officer exceeded jurisdiction, erred in law and were arbitrary/capricious; special action warranted | City: Termination supported by record; no extraordinary relief necessary | Court: No abuse of discretion in declining jurisdiction; record supported decision |
| Whether LCEA barred consideration of attendance prior to Oct. 15, 2013 | Gee: LCEA’s "full and complete resolution" language precludes use of pre‑Oct.15 attendance | City: Findings do not require interpreting LCEA to sustain discipline; post‑LCEA conduct was sufficient | Court: Interpretation of LCEA not necessary; Board relied on conduct after LCEA as basis under Rule 21b3 |
| Sufficiency of evidence re: absences and policy violations | Gee: City miscalculated absences; no competent evidence to support findings | City: Hearing record supports findings of unscheduled absences and rule violations | Court: Court will not reweigh evidence; record contains substantial support for findings |
| Whether Rule 21b3 supports upholding discipline regardless of other findings | Gee: Challenges application/interpretation of rules | City: Any finding under Rule 21b is sufficient to uphold discipline | Court: Finding that Gee violated Rule 21b3 is sufficient to uphold dismissal; no need to address other rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Grant, 222 Ariz. 507 (discretionary nature of special action jurisdiction)
- Files v. Bernal, 200 Ariz. 64 (standard of review for declination of special action jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Dean v. City Ct. of City of Tucson, 123 Ariz. 189 (affirmance of denial if any valid reason supports it)
- State v. Johnson, 184 Ariz. 521 (on appellate scope when superior court declines jurisdiction)
- Stapert v. Ariz. Bd. of Psychologist Exam’rs, 210 Ariz. 177 (standards for special action jurisdiction)
- Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431 (appellate courts do not reweigh administrative factfinding)
- Bd. of Cty. Supervisors v. Rio Rico Volunteer Fire Dist., 119 Ariz. 361 (burden on party seeking special action to show jurisdiction is warranted)