352 P.3d 1053
Kan. Ct. App.2015Background
- Robert K. Miller served as Wabaunsee County Appraiser by 4‑year appointment; the Board terminated him March 21, 2011 alleging poor performance (training/supervision failures, misuse of leave/timekeeping, excessive personal calls).
- Miller timely appealed the Board’s order to the Property Valuation Division (PVD); the PVD initially reversed, finding the Board breached a written employment agreement (progressive discipline policy) and ordered reinstatement.
- The district court vacated the PVD’s reinstatement, holding the PVD lacked jurisdiction to decide a breach‑of‑contract claim and remanded for review under K.S.A. 19‑431(a) (the statutory post‑termination review process).
- On remand the PVD upheld the Board’s termination as proper under K.S.A. 19‑431(a); the district court affirmed, and the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
- Miller argued (1) the Board lacked statutory authority to terminate him, (2) the PVD should have reviewed de novo and/or considered the county progressive discipline policy, and (3) he was entitled to back pay because the Board’s action should have been treated as a suspension pending full process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Board authority to terminate under K.S.A. 19‑431(a) | Miller: statute makes post‑termination PVD process exclusive; Board lacked power to terminate pre‑hearing | Board: statute authorizes Board to enter an order of termination, subject to PVD review | Held: Board has authority to terminate and serve notice; PVD’s post‑termination hearing does not divest Board of initial power to terminate |
| Standard of review by PVD (de novo vs. deferential) | Miller: PVD must review Board decision de novo and substitute its judgment | Board/PVD: statute’s phrase “evidence satisfactory to such board” indicates PVD must give deference to Board’s judgment | Held: PVD must hold a hearing and inquire into all facts but give some deference; it may not substitute its judgment for the Board; review is limited to whether facts support evidence satisfactory to the Board |
| Relevance of county progressive discipline policy / sufficiency of evidence | Miller: PVD erred by ignoring undisputed failure to follow county progressive discipline (breach of contract) and thus termination lacked support | Board: breach‑of‑contract claim falls outside K.S.A. 19‑431(a) review; substantial competent evidence supports termination regardless | Held: breach‑of‑contract/progressive‑discipline claims lie outside PVD’s statutory scope; even if considered, any PVD omission was harmless because substantial competent evidence supports termination |
| Salary/back pay — suspension vs. termination; due process | Miller: Board’s notice was inadequate; under Kennedy and Loudermill his removal should be treated as suspension with pay pending final administrative review | Board: Miller received written reasons and two opportunities to be heard; process satisfied due process so termination was final and not a paid suspension | Held: Board provided adequate pretermination notice/opportunity; termination was final (not a suspension) and Miller is not entitled to full salary/benefits pending PVD resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 264 Kan. 776 (1998) (treats insufficient pretermination notice as suspension with pay pending adequate process; discussed due process limits on K.S.A. 19‑431(a))
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (public employees with property interest in employment are entitled to notice, explanation of evidence, and opportunity to respond before termination)
- Kansas Dept. of Revenue v. Powell, 290 Kan. 564 (2010) (standards for appellate review of agency decisions under KJRA; agency review scope considerations)