818 N.W.2d 774
N.D.2012Background
- Meier was terminated from state employment and appealed the termination to HRMS; the ALJ upheld the termination.
- Meier attempted to appeal to district court and served the notice of appeal and specifications of error only on executive director, the director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, and an assistant attorney general as per N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(4).
- Department moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because HRMS service was not made as required by N.D.C.C. § 54-44.3-12.2; district court dismissed the appeal.
- The district court relied on lack of service on HRMS to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; Meier challenged the necessity of HRMS service.
- The court held N.D.C.C. § 54-44.3-12.2 adds an additional service requirement to N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(4) and that service on HRMS is necessary to perfect the appeal from ALJ decisions under the Central Personnel System Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is HRMS service required to perfect an appeal under ch. 54-44.3? | Meier argues HRMS service is unnecessary. | HRMS service is an added requirement to §28-32-42(4). | Yes, HRMS service required. |
| Is §54-44.3-12.2 a jurisdictional requirement? | Legislative history suggests non-jurisdictional purpose. | It imposes additional jurisdictional service. | Yes, it imposes jurisdictional service. |
| Does Geffre support avoiding HRMS service as non-jurisdictional? | Geffre overruled Ryan regarding HRMS service. | Geffre reaffirmed Ryan’s stance for pre-August 2009 appeals. | Geffre does not overrule Ryan here; service on HRMS is essential. |
Key Cases Cited
- Geffre v. North Dakota Dep’t of Health, 795 N.W.2d 681 (2011 ND 45) (statutory language controlling; service on HRMS is required post-2009 amendment)
- North Dakota Dep’t of Human Services v. Ryan, 672 N.W.2d 649 (2003 ND 196) (failure to serve HRMS did not deprive district court of jurisdiction)
- Reliable, Inc. v. Stutsman Cnty. Comm’n, 409 N.W.2d 632 (ND 1987) (service/filing distinctions treated as jurisdictional)