Kathy S. Crofts v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Game and Fish, 367 P.3d 619

Kathy Crofts, a long‑term Wyoming Game & Fish wildlife investigator, received two suspensions (one day on Oct. 13, 2011; three days on Apr. 27, 2012) and was terminated on May 25, 2012. Suspensions were based on alleged insubordination, inaccurate paperwork, and conduct undermining joint investigations.
Crofts filed grievances for each suspension and appealed her termination to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH); her OAH petition contested cause and alleged retaliation and discrimination but did not assert a procedural due process claim or that supervisors lacked authority to suspend.
At OAH, the hearing examiner limited evidence to issues pled by Crofts (granting a motion in limine). Crofts did not meaningfully preserve a claim that she was denied pre‑deprivation process or that suspending supervisors lacked written delegation.
The OAH found “good cause” for the suspensions and termination; the district court affirmed. Crofts appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court, raising (for the first time) a due process denial claim and arguing OAH lacked jurisdiction because suspensions were void for lack of delegated authority.
The Supreme Court declined to consider the newly raised due process claim (not sufficiently fundamental to excuse preservation) and held the authority/delegation issue was nonjurisdictional and therefore not reviewable for the first time on appeal; it affirmed the district court/OAH decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May Crofts raise alleged deprivation of procedural due process (no pre‑deprivation notice/hearing for suspensions) for first time on appeal?	Crofts: denial of pre‑deprivation process for suspensions violated property/liberty interests (career, good name) and is fundamental so may be raised now.	Game & Fish: Crofts did not raise the issue below; the full post‑deprivation hearing occurred; the claim is not so fundamental to excuse preservation.	Court: Not preserved and not of such a fundamental nature to consider for first time on appeal; claim refused.
Did OAH lack subject‑matter jurisdiction because suspending supervisors lacked written delegation, making suspensions void ab initio?	Crofts: Suspensions were void for lack of written delegation under personnel rules; a void action deprives OAH of jurisdiction to hear appeal.	Game & Fish: OAH has explicit authority to review compliance with personnel rules and thus had jurisdiction; Crofts failed to preserve the delegation issue below.	Court: The delegation/authority issue is nonjurisdictional, OAH had subject‑matter jurisdiction to decide compliance, and Crofts failed to preserve the claim; not considered on appeal.

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (property/liberty interest prerequisite for procedural due process protections)
Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property/liberty interests must arise from independent sources such as state law)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972) (credibility issues affecting prosecution/witness use)
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1994) (limited agency record may preclude review of newly raised substantive claims)
Painter v. Abels, 998 P.2d 931 (Wyo. 2000) (discussion of what constitutes a ‘‘fundamental’’ interest in administrative context)
Kordus v. Montes, 337 P.3d 1138 (Wyo. 2014) (examples of when the court has considered constitutional issues raised first on appeal)