Noflin v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Garfield, The
1:17-cv-00337
D. Colo.May 12, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Wade Noflin sued Garfield County under Title VII and ADEA, alleging race and age discrimination after being terminated following an undercover drug sting in which he spoke to someone he believed was 19; he was never charged.
- Complaint includes additional state-law claims: defamation (and questioning County conflict-of-interest stance) and hostile work environment/verbal abuse by his supervisor.
- Defendant moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) to dismiss the state-law tort claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing failure to comply with Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA) notice requirements and that the claims lie in tort.
- Court applies liberal pleading standards for pro se plaintiffs but notes conclusory allegations without factual support are insufficient.
- The court analyzed whether each state-law claim "lies in tort" for purposes of the CGIA (which grants governmental immunity for tort claims except certain statutory exceptions).
- Court concluded the hostile-work-environment claim seeks equitable, non-compensatory relief under Colorado civil-rights principles and does not lie in tort; the defamation claim, however, is a tort not covered by the CGIA exceptions and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hostile-work-environment claim lies in tort under CGIA | Noflin contends supervisor’s conduct created hostile environment and seeks lost wages and remedial measures | County contends state-law hostile-environment claim is a tort requiring CGIA notice and is barred without compliance | Denied — court held claim seeks equitable, non-tort remedies under Colorado discrimination law; CGIA notice not required |
| Whether defamation claim lies in tort and is barred by CGIA | Noflin alleges defamation related to County statements about conflict of interest | County argues defamation is a tort not among CGIA exceptions, so immunity applies and court lacks jurisdiction | Granted — defamation is a tort outside CGIA exceptions; claim dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Trackwell v. United States, 472 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2007) (pro se pleadings reviewed liberally)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se allegations held to less stringent standards)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (conclusory allegations insufficient; court may not act as advocate for pro se)
- Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983) (court cannot assume facts not alleged)
- City of Colo. Springs v. Conners, 993 P.2d 1167 (Colo. 2000) (distinguishing tort injuries from equitable civil-rights remedies under Colorado law for CGIA purposes)
- Gallagher v. Bd. of Trustees for the Univ. of N. Colo., 54 P.3d 386 (Colo. 2002) (defamation is not among CGIA’s exceptions to governmental immunity)