Kocherhans v. Orem City
2011 UT App 399
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Kocherhans worked for Orem City for 26 years and was promoted to Treasury Division Manager in 2006.
- On September 15, 2008 he received a notice of intent to terminate for cause and appealed to his supervisor under the City Manual.
- Pedersen denied the appeal and Kocherhans was terminated on September 24, 2008; he appealed to the City Employee Appeal Board as provided by the Manual and by section 1106.
- The Board upheld termination on December 15, 2008; Kocherhans did not seek further review by the Utah Court of Appeals as allowed by statute.
- In August 2009 Kocherhans filed a district court complaint for wrongful termination, attaching the Manual; Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- The district court dismissed, holding Kocherhans’s Treasury Division Manager position was merit, not at-will, and thus subject to the administrative process; the court rejected at-will status under 1105.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is exhaustion mandatory or permissive under 10-3-1106? | Kocherhans argues review is permissive if at-will status applies. | Defendants contend 1106 review is mandatory after internal grievance procedures. | Exhaustion is mandatory; failure to seek Court of Appeals review bars suit. |
| Was Kocherhans an at-will head/deputy exempt under 10-3-1105? | Kocherhans contends Treasury Manager is a deputy head of department, exempt from 1106. | City argues Treasury Manager is not a department head or deputy; status is merit. | Kocherhans not shown to be a head or deputy; district court correctly classified him as merit. |
| Did the City Manual's Department Director interpretation align with 1105's head/deputy exemption? | Manual's 'Department Director' should be treated as equivalent to 'head of a municipal department'. | Manual does not define a deputy; interpretation consistent with statutory structure. | Manual interpretation aligns with 1105; Department Directors cannot be read to create mandatory deputies. |
| Did the dismissal rest on exhaustion preclude consideration of wrongful termination claim? | If at-will status exemption applies, wrongful termination may survive beyond exhaustion. | Exhaustion defeats jurisdiction regardless of wrongful termination claim. | Affirmed on exhaustion grounds; reached no ruling on wrongful termination merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Bell, 2010 UT 47 (Utah) (statutory interpretation and purpose of legislature in context)
- Arredondo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 2001 UT 29 (Utah) (plain-language interpretation and harmony with related statutes)
- Carter v. University of Utah Med. Cir., 2006 UT 78 (Utah) (interpretation of related statutory provisions within the chapter)
- Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017 (Utah 1996) (interpretive principles in statutory construction)
- Thorpe v. Washington City, 2010 UT App 297 (Utah App.) (permissiveness of internal review and exhaustion considerations)